ML20214L030
| ML20214L030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-502 OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8608250035 | |
| Download: ML20214L030 (190) | |
Text
_ -. - - . . _
= _ . . . . - . _ ._ ~ - - . . . . . . . . __
24423 I OR"GINAL UNIlED STATES OF AMERICA
(^J)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
X In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
- 50-445-OL & OL-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, : 50-446-OL & OL-2 et al., :
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
Station, Units 1 and 2) :
X Downtown Hilton 1914 Commerce Street Dallas, Texas Monday, 18 August 1986 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 1:20 p.m.,
BEFORE:
JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH, Chairman t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
,co B s
t- 6\
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24423 I i
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\_)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
X In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
- 50-445-OL & OL-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, : 50-446-OL & OL-2 et al., :
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
Station, Units 1 and 2) :
X Downtown Hilton 1914 Commerce Street Dallas, Texas O
Monday, 18 August 1986 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 1:20 p.m.,
BEFORE:
JUDGE PETER B. BLOCil, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board JUDGE KENNETil A. McCOLLOM, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(}
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 24424 '
JUDGE WALTER J. JORDAN 1 73 L-)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Applicants:
ROBERT A. WOOLDRIDGE, Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge, Thirty-Two Hundred 2001 Bryan Tower i
Dallas, Texas 75201 R. K. GAD, III, and TIIOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR.,
WILLIAM S. EGGELING, Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 NICilOLAS S. REYNOLDS Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20046 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 2
24425 '
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
C:)
LAWRENCE CHANDLER, GEARY MIZUNO, Office of the Gen?ral Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1
On behalf of the Intervenors, C.A.S.E:
JUANITA ELLIS, Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
-AND-ANTHONY ROISMAN BILLIE GARDE, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
! 2000 "P" Street N.W.
i j Washington, D.C. 20030 i
l
() .
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(!p 2442'6 ;
4 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Good afternoon, I'm Peter BLoch,
(-)3, 2 chairman of the licensing board for the Texas Utilities 3 Electric Company et al, operating license case involving 4 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station units one and two, 5 docket numbers 50-4450L and 50-4460L.
6 The purpose of the conference that we've called 7 for today and tomorrow is to discuss first matters 8 concerning the scheduling of discovery and hearing matters 9 in the operating license case. And second, to resolve 10 discovery questions pending before us.
11 May I ask at the outset whether we have the 12 document that was promised for this morning?
r^'N
/ 13 MR. GAD: If Your Honor please, I'd like to 14 tender to the board the original plus two copies of brief 15 to which Your Honor refers. Mr. Roisman has been given a 16 copy a moment ago and Mrs. Ellis will be as soon as she 17 arrives. We'll take care of giving one to Mr. Clements in 18 due course with the Board's leave.
19 MR. CHANDLER: I'm sitting here, Mr. Chairman, 20 somewhat at a loss. May I ask what document --
21 JUDGE BLOCH: We will get to it in a second.
22 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I know Mrs. Ellis is 23 not in the the room yet. As long as we're still in this l
() 24 sort of paper passing, that's fine, but I'd like us not to 25 start with the hearing until she's here.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
i
24427 j 7s 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's start the part where we talk (j * -
2 on the record about who we are. I'm Peter Bloch, I'm 3 Chairman of the operating license board. On my left, 4 Dr. Kenneth McCollum; and on my right, Dr. Walter Jordan.
5 I would appreciate it if the parties would identify 6 themselves for the record, beginning with Applicants.
7 MR. GAD: May it please the board, my name is 8 Robert Gad of the firm of Ropes & Gray, in Boston.
9 Appearing with me from the same firm are my partners Thomas 10 G. Dignan and on my left, William S. Eggeling, whom I'd 11 like to introduce to the board.
12 Also appearing with us for the applicants, are (x
N 13 Mr. Robert A. Wooldridge to my right; Mr. Nicholas S.
14 'Reynolds at the auxilary counsel section over here on my 15 right, all for the applicants.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: For C.A.S.E.
17 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, my name is Anthony Z.
18 Roisman, with Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. With me on 19 my right and also representing C.A.S.E. is Mrs. Juanita 20 Ellis. To her right Mr. Adam Palmer, the latest in our 21 long line of Antioch students without whom we could not 22 participate in these hearings, and on my left is the new 23 lawyer but not yet attorney, who I'm very pleased to have I 24 now as almost fully my co-counsel, Mrs. Billie Garde.
(V'T 25 MR. CHANDLER: For the staff, Mr. Chairman, my
! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24428 1 name is Lawrence Chandler; with me to my left is Mr. Geary
( ,) .
v 2 Mizuno.
We're with the Office of the General Counsel of 3 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C.
4 I would ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, if certificates of 5 service could be appropriately corrected to reflect the 6 reunification of our offices.
7 MR. ROISMAN: What?
8 MR. CHNADLER: There no longer exists an office 9 of the executive legal director. There now exists a single 10 office of general counsel.
11 JUDGE BOLCH: Okay, so people can address their 12 mail correctly. And will you inform the secretary?
/~T
\-) 13 MR. CHANDLER: I'm sorry?
14
- JUDGE BLOCH: Will you inform the secretary of 15 the Commission for the purposes of having that part of it 16 right.
17 MR. CHANDLER: I'm sure the secretary has been 18 made aware, thank you.
19 MR. ROISMAN: I have one preliminary matter l
20 before we start and it will just take a second.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Please.
22 MR. ROISMAN: C.A.S.E. filed a progress report 23 which included a lengthy attachment. We have since the
() 24 filing of that attachment, Mrs. Ellis and representitives l 25 of the Applicant have discussed the matters contained in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
2442'9 ;
I 1 there at some length, and we have reached a resolution of l 7- *
(,/ ;
2 the matters contained in there with the understanding that i 3 we will have a signed agreement by tomorrow morning.
4 With that understanding, we would ask that the 5 Board not include discussion of that matter here; that of 6 course is not our prerogative to tell you you can't. But 7 to tell you that we don't have anymore to say about it and 8 we feel that we've reached an amicable settlement and we're 9 very pleased and I trust the A'pplicants are pleased with 10 the resolution of those matters.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: And the Board is very pleased also.
12 On the way here, the Board discussed how we would like to
,~ .
- 13 proceed today. And while we will be asking for sequential 14 arguments from the parties, there are some preliminary 15 questions that we thought we would like to clarify as a
- 16 basis of -- for the procedural discussion.
( 17 What I'd like to do is to mention a concern and 18 then ask the parties to comment on them sequentially 19 starting with Applicants and then C.A.S.E. and the Staff.
l 20 Cur first concern is whether we are correct in l
l 21 understanding that the CPRT report will not be directly l 22 covering the adequacy of QA/QC for pre-1985 design and 23 construction. Is that basically correct?
l
(} 24 MR. GAD: I hesitate, Your Honor, for two 25 reasons. The first is that it's a sho.rt question but it's l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
2443'O 1 a big one nonetheless, and I think to be precise if not
[_.,v) - .
2 accurate, I'd have to go do a wee bit of research. And the 3 the second reason is, because I'm not entirely sure I 4 understand what the Board means when it says, "Will not 5 directly be covering QA/QC."
6 The CPRT program plan in its entirety is designed 7 to provide the basis for reasonable assurance about present 8 status of the construction and the design of Comanche Peak 9 Steam Electric Station. Neces'sarily, to some extent, that 10 involves QA/QC, at least wherever QA/QC in some application 11 is argued to bear upon the present status of the plant.
12 But I have a suspicion Your Honors has something different 13 in mind.
14 -
JUDGE BLOCH: It's kind of like the difference 15 between looking at the sun directly and looking at the way 16 it strikes the ground. Are you going to be talking about 17 the adequacy of the QA/QC program itself, or only the 18 adequacy of the plant?
19 MR. GAD: I think it depends. You have before 20 you a results report already No. 7A4 which within its 21 topical scope, to wit the audit program and audit of 22 qualifications, discusses the program directly as I think 23 Your Honor used the term. On the other hand, we have one
(} 24 such as 1A3 that addresses its topic as of the moment. We 25 have some such as 7B2 which address both.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24431 ;
- 1 JUDGE BLOCH: 1A3 is the electrical terminations?
g . .
2 MR. GAD: No, Your Honor. lA3 is the 3 qualification of butt splices. It is the vendor's file for 4 environmental qualification on a particular vendor supplied 5 item that was used in many applications in the project.
6 JUDGE JORDAN: I think to clarify a little bit.
7 We have of course seen the ISAPs, but and particularly the 8 QA/QEC ISAPs in appendix C, and we note that those do 9 address the allegations of ina'dequate QA/QC. And those 10 that we have read, however, address them to the extent, do 11 those allegations reflect on the present QA/QC program, and 12 your -- I believe the position as stated in perhaps the
(~)/
x_ 13 ISAP 7C is that you will do an inspection program which 14 will insure the adequacy of the construction independent of 15 whether the QA/QC program previous was adequate or not.
16 And we -- I see no place where you will, for 17 example, collect all of the instances of QA/QC failures in 18 design or in OA/QC failures in construction where those 19 will all be collected and evaluated for root cause, as to 20 whether there was a break down in the QA/QC program and if 21 so, the extent of the breakdown.
22 And it is my feeling that that is not a topic 23 that is going to be discussed in the -- that I find
/~1 24 discussed at all., in the CPRT. And the reason I bring it
(/
25 up is because the adequacy of the program, of the amount TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\
2443'2 g~ 1 of -- well, I understand it is C.A.S.E.'s position that e-)
2 there should be a 100 percent reinspection of all of the 3 hardware and of all the designs.
4 And they will tie this in by saying that the 5 breakdown has been so severe that 100 percent reinspection 6 is required. I've seen it in their pleadings. And so the 7 question is therefore, do you address this point in the 8 extent of the breakdown and also the extent of the 9 reinspection program; I understand you have the 95/5 10 sampling program and so on.
11 And the question is: 7 is that adequate in terms 12 of the extent of the breakdown? And I've seen no N 13 discussion of this in the CPRT?
14 MR. GAD: I'd like to try to respond to this with 15 two caveats. The first is that as one decends from the 16 general to the specific, I might have to get the big books 17 in front of me and perhaps go talk to some people. I also 18 think that there are two very different concepts that have 19 to be borne in mind.
20 The first is what percentage of the plant are you 21 looking at. Is that 100 percent or something less, for the l 22 purpose of forming a judgment, on one hand, and how are you 23 doing it, which might be an item by item or some form, or 24 by the use of some kind of quantitative analysis that gives
( 25 you data about the entirety of the population. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24433 7- 1 So when you talk about 100 percent, I think one V ' 2 must distinguish between populations and samples. But with 3 the, two caveats in mind, let me see if I can converge upon 4 what you're looking for this way. 5 JUDGE JORDAN: Could I say that I should' add that 6 perhaps we are limiting our discussion at the moment at 7 least to the safety related systems in one and two. 8 MR. GAD: As was I. And when I say 100 percent, 9 I mean really 100 percent of t' hat portion of the 10 construction outside of NSSS, that is subject to part 50 11 Appendix B. 12 Again, at approximately 35,000 feet, I think, the n - k- 13 purpose of CPRT is to deal with the present status of the 14 plant, construction and design. And right there you have 15 to stop and divide them because you approach construction 16 and design different, because of the differences in the two 17 processes. 18 The extent to which one will or must go back into 19 the implementation of the historical QA/QC program I find l 20 difficult to generalize, because that is as I believe Your 21 Honor averted to a moment ago, a means to an end. And if l 22 not, let's get it out on the table. 23 It is not the end for which CPRT exists; this is i (} 24 not a report card per se on the historical program, except 25 insofar as we have to give a report card in order to reach TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l i
2443'4 i 1 the goal. [3) - - 2 And an example is 7B2. Having interrupted 3 myself, I forget now how I was going to finish this 4 sentence. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: To what extent will you be giving a 6 report card on your own OA/QC for design and to what extent 7 will be you giving a report card on QA/QC for construction 8 with respect to the period before the CPRT started? 9 MR. GAD: Let me again put design aside for a 10 moment because the process is different. Where a topic, a 11 piece of hardware, if you will, a population of hardware, 12 is assessed, either under 7C or elsewhere, and it is found 13 that in fact there are no deficiencies, that there is no 14 need therefore to bound some failure in the process to see 15 its extent and its direction, then again at the risk of 16 over generalizing, there will be very little of a report 17 card. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: So let's be clear, if you take a 19 sample and in that sample there were no hardware 20 deficiencies of safety significance, you won't even be 21 looking at whether 15 percent of the paper is ridiculous. 22 There could be 15 percent of the paper which has glaring 23 errors and not spotting visible things about the plant. 1 () 24 And if none of those visible things have safety 25 significance, you won't even know that. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24435 , 1 MR. GAD: How does a piece of paper, Your Honor, 2 tell you that the piece of paper or, more precisely, its 3 author, failed to spot a deficiency, if in fact you have 4 gone and looked at the hardware, itself, and reached a 5 conclusion that, putting aside perturbations in the noise, 6 there are no deficiencies, 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Will you start with the possibility 8 that there were attributes you've decided are not safety
'9 significant.
10 MR. GAD: That's a very different question, Your 11 Honor. We are not inspecting to the original inspection 12 acceptance criteria as we might do if we were grading the C\ (_/ 13 inspectors. And again, I've got to be careful about 14 generalizations because there are applications where we are 15 grading the inspectors. But you're really focusing on 7C 16 then. 17 We are inspecting to the criteria that we are 18 prepared to defend today, almost today, as the criteria 19 against which this construction should be measured. We are 20 not inspecting against the historical criteria right or 21 wrong, in order to see whether the inspectors did a good 22 job. 23 The report card that comes out, again, 35,000 (} 24 feet -- and you forced me into a generalization -- the 25 report card that comes out is a report card on the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 1 24436 i
,\ 1 hardware, and'it will tell you whether or not that hardware !
(_) 2 is constructed such that it is capable -- free of the kind 3 of defects that would render it incapable of being operated 4 safely. 5 Now the scope of it, Doctor, is to say that the 6 population being sampled, is essentially, underscore the 7 word " essentially," 100 percent of the Appendix B plan. 8 Means by which we get there often involve a quantitative 9 analysis, employing samples. These why I distinguish 10 between samples and population. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: For example when it comes to the 12 paint QA/QC, will you be looking at whether or not the C 13 QA/QC for paint was defective or are you satisfied that 14 because the paint is now requalified another way that it 15 doesn't matter whether the whole paint program was 16 ineffective? 17 MR. GAD: One is no longer concerned about the 18 present status of the paint because the paint is non-Q. 19 The CPRT was concerned about looking at not, if you will, 20 the status of the pa_ int QA/QC but what had been alleged 21 about it in order to determine whether or not, from that, 22 one had leads, issues, that had to be investigated in the 23 non-paint areas.
;( ) 24 That, in fact, was the function of ISAP, I'm 25 sorry, ISAP, issue specific action plan, 7A9, which as, l
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 244'37 l 1 1 Your Honors is aware -- are aware, whatever, was recently '
)
l 2 added to the program plan together with 3A5. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Added or deleted? 4 MR. GAD: Added. 7A9, before it was actually 5 issued, was carried as an untitled slot for issues that 6 would emanate out of the paint QA/QC review. As it turned 7 out, the issue that -- or set of issues that were 8 determined to require further investigation had to do with 9 the receipt and the restorage of purchased materials and 10 that now is the focus of ISAP 7B9. So the anwer to Your
-11 Honor's question is, we needed to look at the paint, we --
12 that's being presumptuous -- CPRT needed to look at the 13 paint; CPRT did look at the paint story in order to 14 determine the extent to which that story required a look 15 elsewhere. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there a principle here, if 17 there's an allegation of a deficiency in QA/QC or if you 18 find a defective area of the plant from the hardware 19 standpoint, are you then going to look at what the nature 20 of the QA/QC deficiencies were and track them back to their 21 source? 22 MR. GAD: To the extent necessary in order to be 23 sure that you have bound the potential generic implications (} 24 of deficiency that you found. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: And when do you that, will you at
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'38 1 that time also be looking at the management implications of 7s (_) 2 the breakdown? 3 MR. GAD: I don't understand. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: If you're going to look back to 5 find out what the breakdown was, you'd want to look at the 6 role management may have played in managing a program which 7 didn't work; because I assume that if management has a 8 problem in one area of the plant, you'd worry about whether 9 the same management difficulties caused problems in other 10 areas of the plant. 11 MR. GAD: Put me at a slight disadvantage, 12 because I've sat in on some of the sessions where as yet 13 unpublished results reports have been discussed. I'm sure 14 you don't intend to press me for such materials. So 15 therefore, let me say that as a prediction, you will find, 16 where that CPRT will find few situations where, as you've 17 used the term, management has much to do with how things 18 went wrong. 19 One May find as was the case in 7A4, that there 20 were weaknesses in a structure; for instance, for 21 translating certain classes of commitments to procedures. 22 If you want to call that management, then I guess the l l 23 answer to your question is yes. But bottom line answer to () 24 your question is to the extent in the judgment of CPRT 25 necessary to accomplish the end, then they will employ that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 24439
- 1 means.
x) JUDGE BLOCH: The end being to find out whether 2 3 the problem in one area of the plant suggests problems in 4 other areas of the plant? 5 MR. GAD: To bound what you have found, that's 6 correct. And of course, if you can't bind it then you've 7 got problems. 8 JUDGE MC COLLOM: Let me ask a question about 9 that. CPRT is addressing essentially allegations and 10 concerns that have arisen, that is, whenever we recieve an 11 ISAP now it's relatively narrow, it's particularly about a 12 given thing that's been raised by inside or outside people. 13 If you find that issues have.not been raised in a given 14 area because for whatever reason they hadn't been found or 15 whatever, I think that is a concern that is -- that we're 16 concerned about, that is what if you didn't have these 17 specific things come up and therefore CPRT is not 18 addressing them, how can you address them then in an 19 adequate QA/QC program. 20 MR. GAD: If that -- if that's the question, then 21 I apologize for being dense and let me see if I can put it 22 to rest. 23 Historically CPRT, I mean it's got as many phases (} 24 as a butterfly, but historically, it started out as a very 25 discrete focused response to three staff letters. And the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'40 s 1 results reports that Your Honors have seen are the early
-] 2 fruit of the program. And yes indeed, they're quite 3 limited and they are issue responsive. That is only one 4 set of what constitiutes CPRT.
5 On the hardware side, you have ISAP 7C; it is 6 perhaps poorly numbered because hierarchically, it suggests 7 it's down there with the rest and in fact it's quite 8 different. 7C is designed to give youm, No. 1, the same 9 answers you would have found doing the issue specifics, if 10 you had never done them. And No. 2, to take this 11 investigation and spread it through -- again I'm defining 12 the term, Mr. Reporter, if you can do a footnote, "100 O
's / 13 percent of the plant," we don't mean exactly 100 percent.
14 So that it will capture, if in fact there were similar 15 kinds of things about pervasive failings that existed in 16 areas that no one ever raised an issue about, that should
- 17 be detected by 7C program and once detected, it would be 18 treated exactly the same as an allegation.
l 19 That's on the hardware side and really we should j 20 have called that eight except we already had an eight. On 21 the design side -- 22 JUDGE JORDAN: Before we leave that -- 23 MR. GAD: Yes, Your Honor? i (} 24 JUDGE JORDAN: You say that should detect, if 25 there have been -- if there's been a breakdown. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24441 , l l 1 MR.' GAD: That is correct, Your Honor. 73 ~ k_) JUDGE JORDAN: Now, with what -- with what 2 3 confidence level? And the whole question that we're 4 raising is: The confidence level that you have by -- of 5 the sampling program, the 95/5 level, is that adequate in 6 terms of the extent of the QA/QC breakdown? This is the, I 7 think, the crux of the matter and I don't believe that is 8 being addressed anywhere in the CPRT. 9 MR. GAD: Let me, you know, it's not that I 10 really mind the hot seat -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: If you would, Mr. Gad, the purpose 12 is really to find out information that we think is (~1 s- 13 important -- 14 MR. GAD: I understand, Your Honor. But I need 15 something to give me a chance to think here. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: I noticed you're standing. 17 MR. GAD: The real concern I have is that I do, I 18 get bashed over the head every once in a while for 19 repeating this lamentation, but I am just a lawyer, Your 20 Honor, and I don't want to get pinned down on the details. 21 But take your question, you can approach it one of three 22 ways. l l 23 The first way is strictly quantitatively and you l can approach to what degree of precision you like. The l {} 24 25 detection potential of the appendix D sampling plan as if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'42 1 that stood alone, which it doesn't, then you could assay O 2 quantifying to the same degree of precision the detection 3 potential of a -- I hate the phrase, ordinary garden 4 variety, takes the QA/QC plan, particularly as interpreted 5 by the Callaway decision and then you can try and measure 6 the two. That's one way to do it. I don't think it's the 7 way we'll end up. 8 Another way to do it is to recognize that the 9 requisite, bearing in mind the complexity of this whole 10 thing and what Callaway had to say about that, recognize 11 that the assurance that one gets from a QA/QC program is in 12 fact not quantitative at all but qualitative. And then A/ 13 you're going to get an opportunity, Your Honors, to cross 14 examin -- 15 JUDGE BLOCH: That does sound like a lawyer. 16 MR. GAD: I'm complimented, Your Honor. And 17 then -- ! 18 JUDGE BLOCH: In other words, it's either 100 19 percent safe or not, that's qulitative? , 20 MR. GAD: No. It either meets the requirement of 21 the Commissions regulations as interpreted by such 22 decisions written in part by lawyers, and which prescended 23 entirely from mathematical quantifications or it doesn't, {} 24 and then you can cross-examine the senior review team and 25 the balance of the members of CPRT as to why they have this TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
. 1 I 24443 l f s. 1 qualitative assurance, why you should have this qualitative I
2 assurance, and why it's the same as the qualitative 3 assurance that one would get from the implementation of the 4 QA/QC program. 5 There's frankly a third way and in real life 6 we're going to do all three and that is this: If you 7 design a program that turns out to be a very -- I'm sorry, 8 did you say something -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: No, I was trying to get some quiet. 10 MR. GAD: If you design a program that is in fact 11 a very rigorous screening for the sort of things that 12 shouldn't get by, again excepting perturbations in any 13 human activity that shouldn't get by a functioning QA/QC i 14 program, and then you run that investigation and it comes l l 15 back and there weren't any, then that tells you something 16 beyond what it tells you about the hardware. 17 Gets back to this question of, you know, you 18 asked me are we operating on the assumption that the thing 19 broke down across the Board. The answer is no. We're l 20 going to find out. We're not necessarily going to find out ; i 21 looking at it by pieces of paper, which I don't think would 22 tell you very much. 23 Putting that aside, I will come back to the --
- () 24 JUDGE BLOCH
- On that issue we had extensive 25 hearings about the paper on the fuel cooled liner.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. l ,
24444 l
- 1 MR.' GAD: Yes, indeed Your Honor.
IsV) 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I would worry that if in other 3 parts of the plant there were ambiguities in the way the 4 paper was to be filled out and the QC workers were willing 5 to fill out things where the document wasn't all that 6 clear, I would worry about the integrity of the QA/QC 7 progarm. So -- 8 MR. GAD: Per se or as it profligates through to 9 the hardware? 10 JUDGE BLOCH: If there are instances where people 11 wrote down things that don't seem to have a clear meaning, 12 it would mean to me that they weren't taking their job the O (_/ 13 way I would like them to take their job and I wouldn't 14 trust them in other areas of the plant. 15 So if there were regular errors where people were 16 writing down things just to check off on a part of the 17 plant and it wasn't that way, I would worry about what that 18 meant for that program elsewhere and then I'd have to say, 19 okay, have we demonstrated the plant, given the assumption 20 that there was a breakdown of QA/QC. Now, if in fact that 21 is very isolated, that the paper doesn't match the plant, 22 regardless of the safety significance of the non-matching, 23 then I wouldn't worry about the integrity of the workers. (} 24 And I'd say look, we've got a different situation. , 25 But for example where you had a problem on the,
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24445 1 and I know you're following up on it now with the (~s\ *
\>
2 penetrations of the containment; if the QA/QC work in that 3 area was -- shows that people were checking off on things 4 where it wasn't there, again I would worry about whether 5 those same people elsewhere in the plant would be trusted. 6 MR. GAD: And that is exactly what I meant when I 7 said that once you have found something -- I mean it's like 8 if you go below and there's water in your bilge, you don't 9 just pump it out, you try and find out where it's coming 10 from. I didn't spend the weekend sailing, so it's high on 11 my list. 12 And I agree with that. The fuel pool liner, I O kJ 13 wasn't here when we did that, and again I don't want to 14 tread into things that I have overheard while just sitting 15 as a lawyer inside a room. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Whether I'm right about that or not 17 is not really not important, what's important is that 18 you're looking at it -- l 19 MR. GAD: Absolutely. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: -- whether from that angle as to 21 whether you trust the work done by those people or those 22 people who are supervising them, in other places. 23 MR. GAD: Absolutely. But what we're not doing, (} 24 and Your Honors may recall the paper battle that went back 25 and forth about this, in 1A4, C.A.S.E. has accused us many TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'46 1 many times, of not following the deficiencies found in 1A4. ('
%,)
2 JUDGE BLOCH: 1A4, you got to tell me the subject 3 matter. I think that's the one with the terminations of 4 the electrical equipment. 5 MR. GAD: That was the subject of last months hot 6 seats -- 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Termination of electrical -- 8 MR. GAD: That is the conformity between the -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: That wasn't just C.A.S.E., the 10 Board issued something on that also. 11 MR. GAD: Yeah. But the -- the Board hasn't yet 12 accused of us not following non-existent deficiencies. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Existent ones that may not be 14 safety significant. 15 MR. GAD: 1A4 is a very bad example because there 16 weren't, there weren't deviations either, there was nothing 17 to follow. 18 JUDGE JORDAN: Which is one of the points 19 actually, that we were concerned about, you see. lA4 looks l 20 for those deficiencies or deviations which doesn't meet -- 21 and which hasn't met the requirements of the commission or 22 the reg guides or whatever. But 1A4 did not look at the l 23 possibility that the QA/QC supervisors let some items go (} 24 by. 25 And this, I think, is true of a number of others.
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'47 , 1 The QA/QC deficiencies is not one of the items that is
]
2 listed in 1A4, neither is it on the items listed in the 3 ISAPs, as far as I know. 4 MR. GAD: You know -- 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Before you answer, I'd like to 6 clarify, because you've revised lA4 if I read it correctly. 7 And, for example, if there's a document that shows the 8 terminations as being a certain way and when you look at 9 the plant the terminations are not that way and this 10 happened a couple of times, but the connections don't pose 11 a functional problem, if I understand that you didn't look 12 at how it happened that the QA/QC paper didn't match the
) 13 plant. And you still haven't, even though we asked you to.
14 Or if you have, you amended it and didn't mention it. 15 MR. GAD: Well, unfortunately listening to that 16 question made me forget the answer to the last one. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought it was the same question, 18 but I'm not certain. Was it the same question? 19 JUDGE JORDAN: Let me clarify just a little bit. 20 You see, we understand what you your definitions of the 21 deviations and deficiencies. But -- and also 22 discrepancies. 23 Now, discrepancies which indicate that there were {} 24 errors in which the construction did not exactly meet the 25 drawings, say, or the procedures, you look at those and if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'48
,s 1 there has come out to be either a deficiency or a
(_) 2 discrepancy -- or a deficiency or deviation, you pick them 3 up. 4 But as I say, if they were errors which may have 5 made the component a little more safe than otherwise have 6 been, if -- in other words, if the inspector fails to pick 7 up something that is not one of the criteria that you 8 inspect to? 9 MR. GAD: Well, it could be or it couldn't be, 10 Your Honor, it depends on whether or not it was something 11 for which we're testing in either CPRT or for that matter 12 the original Appendix B paper and that is stuff that is 13 safety significant. 14 The leads in a nonpolarity two conductor -- two 15 conductor cable, which is incapable by definition of having 16 any functional significance, by definition, they're equal. 17 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right, but there's no 18 question about the matter of safety significance and 19 therefore you did not count them as either being a l 20 deficiency or a discrepancy. 21 MR. GAD: It's not not only that they happen to 22 be there, Your Honor, it's not only that they happen to be 23 that way; all right? Skating by safety significance {} 24 happenstantially doesn't get you out altogether. 25 These were incapable by definition of having any
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24449 1 functional significance.
) ~
(~# 2 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right. But they were 3 discrepancies which they did not correspond to the drawing 4 100 percent, and therefore, the QA inspector passed 5 something that did not correspond exactly to the drawings. 6 MR. GAD: He might have or he might not have. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right. But that's not one 8 of the criteria that are you're inspecting to -- 9 MR. GAD: That's correct. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: -- in either that ISAP or any 11 other, and therefore it is my understanding that you are 12 not, you do not have a program to look at historical Di (_) 13 adequacy of the QA/QC program -- 14 MR. GAD: For itself. 15 JUDGE JORDAN: For itself, that's right. And 16 therefore, how can you conclude that the 7C ISAP which 17 looks at a small -- at only a fraction of the plant, by no 18 means 100 percent of the plant, how does one conclude that 19 the -- that it's not a 100 percent reinspection, 7C is not 20 a 100 hundred -- it's a sampled inspection, how do you 21 conclude that a sampling is adequate if the QA/QC program 22 say, were just completely impossible. 23 MR. GAD: If the QA/QC -- when you say completely r~3 24 impossible -- V 25 JUDGE JORDAN: A complete breakdown. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 244'50 1 MR.' GAD: Totally non-funtioning. 2 JUDGE JORDAN: Totally non-funtioning, then you'd 3 certainly say, all right the only answer is 100 percent 4 reinspection; is that right? 5 MR. GAD: Absolutely right. But we haven't 6 gotten there yet, Your Honor. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right, so -- 8 MR. GAD: You've got to hypothesize the QA/QC 9 program with respect to class A "frumgudget" was just 10 not existent. If that were true, then you would have 11 deviations out there and deficiencies. And once you>found 12 the deficiencies, you have to trace them back to the 13 source, you go down to the source and up to the children or 14 up to the source and down to the children, and you'll get 15 where you want to go because it is necessary in order to 16 accomplish the end. 17 If you come in here with the hypothesis that the 18 QA/QC on class B "frumgudgets" was totally non-functional 19 and then you go out and you do a reinspection on rigorous 20 quantitative basis that leads to the conclusion that on 21 quantities alone, quantitative analysis alone, there is to 22 a 95 percent certainty there are fewer than five percent 23 anywhere in the whole population and indeed, remember we do (} 24 it twice, we don't do it once, we do it once on a sample 25 selected from the population at large, and we do it once TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24451 l
,_, 1 from a subset of the population that has been tagged as
_] 2 having more potential for safety significance. We do it 3 twice. 4 If you do that, an' you come back with no 5 deficiencies in either one, then the hypotesis that QA/QC 6 with respect to class B "frumgudgets" was totally 7 non-functional has been proved to a reasonable certainty 8 and beyond, to be false. 9 JUDGE JORDAN: That's somewhat I understood was 10 the Applicants position, that they would be able to show 11 from 7C that a reasonable assurance that the plant met the 12 specifications. O (_- 13 MR. GAD: That is.the goal, Your Honor. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, on this particular detail, 15 though, what we suggested was that if you looked at the 16 specific paper, you could find out that it was all one QC 17 inspector or that it was all done on one day and then you'd 18 want to enlarge and look further, Which is what we were 19 talking about earlier, about looking at a deficiency, and l 20 tracking it down to see that it was limited to that l 21 particular area. ( 22 But here the Staff found that there's a l l 23 possibility that the QC inspectors weren't checking things ) That was the original allegation by the Staff {} 24 accurately. 25 in the TRT. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'52 s 1 MR. GAD: That wasn't their allegation, actually, ( ) v 2 if you want to be precise. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: That was a portion of it. 4 MR. GAD: They were publishing someone else's 5 allegation. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: But they sustained it. 7 MR. GAD: Not exactly. What the Staff did was 8 they went out and they found six situations -- under the 9 protocol they were operating under, they weren't allowed to 10 ask any questions about these. And so they said here are 11 these six take them and run with them. And we did. 12 Now, to be perfectly honest with you all you had O) k- 13 to do is look at the six and quit and go home. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: You see we looked at it and we 15 didn't think'that, and that's why we issued an order, and 16 what we said was, "At least look at the paper to find out 17 what happened." 18 MR. GAD: We didn't quit and go home, but you 19 could have. Because of the nature of the things that they 20 found -- I apologize, but I've forgot exactly how that 21 sentence was going to end. But the bottom line is that by 22 looking at those six, is the sum of all of the allegations 23 that were supposed to support the underlying indictment 24 which was and I could almost quote, that QA/QC inspectors (]) _ 25 were buying off on mislanded conductors, on a regular TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24453 1 basis, were - " buying off" means, you know they weren't 7 GI 2 any good and you were letting them go anyhow. 3 We took a look at those six, the best that 4 anybody could throw against us and the best that staff I 5 could find and, if Your Hnors will compare the number of 6 sanples looked at by the Staff you will find that the 7 number of samples looked at by the Staff was much larger 8 than the number of samples we looked at, but they were not 9 selected randomly. I 10 And then we went out and did our study to boot 11 and we've yet to find one that fails to meet the exceptance 12 criteria and even amounts to a deviation.. Now if Your 13 Honors want to pursue a pair of old leads in your two 14 conductor cable -- 15 JUDGE MC COLLOM: I'd like to pursue that. 16 MR. GAD: With all due respect, Your Honor, I'm 17 not going to answer those questions on account of because 18 I'm not allowed to raise my right hand and I'm not 19 qualified to do it. I happen to know what the answers is 20 going to be -- 21 JUDGE MC COLLOM: I think this can be a little 22 bit helpful. Let me point this out. Both Dr. Jordan and 23 I, when we were more useful than we are in paper shuffling, (} 24 were instrumentation and control and systems people. 25 And what I am asking you now may have an impact TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24454 !
, l 1
1 on this and you may not know it, maybe you can get the 2 answer. Were the inspections that were made for 1A4 on 3 those various terminals, to see if they're landed or not, 4 made before or after there was voltage placed to the 5 control system. 6 MR. GAD: The initial acceptance inspections? 7 JUDGE MC COLLOM: No, I just say had people put 8 the voltage to the control system to see what happened. 9 MR. GAD: Before we did the CPRT inspection; yes, 10 yes, Your Honor, they had the continuity checked. 11 JUDGE MC COLLOM: I'm asking for one other step, 12 and that is that you turned on the voltage and you saw that 13 certain relays went and certain others didn't? 14 MR. GAD: The answer from the the back of the 15 room is yes. 16 JUDGE MC COLLOM: All right. Then I'm not 17 suprised that the only thing that you caught might have l 18 been just the pair of unpolarized terminals. Because those 19 you wouldn't check by a hot test. l 20 MR. GAD: Right -- l 21 JUDGE MC COLLOM: Whereas, if they were reversed 22 when they shouldn't have been, then somebody very quickly 23 that knows what he's doing in that control room is going to (} 24 reverse them back. And so the check didn't necessarily 25 check to see what QA/QC did in that series of inspections,
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'55 l ,_s 1 if that simpls example is true. k_) 2 MR. GAD: They checked to see whether or not the 3 machine would do exactly what it was supposed to do and it 4 passed. 5 JUDGE MC COLLOM: Did they change anything 6 between the time they put the voltage to it and found out 7 that something didn't work? 8 MR. GAD: They never found out that something 9 didn't work. You're asking me -- 10 JUDGE MC COLLOM: I would suggest that you not 11 make that statement until you find out for sure. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: He's suggesting that you would want 13 to look at how often the hot tests showed that the QA/QC 14 had not found deficiencies that the hot test showed up 15 deficiencies. 16 JUDGE MC COLLOM: Which were corrected before the 17 terminals were looked at for 1A4. 18 MR. GAD: All right. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I have a sense that because we've 20 got so many questions on this, that maybe before you go on 21 to design on the same question on QA/QC for design you 22 might want a little break? 23 MR. GAD: That would be marvelous. (} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't we take a ten minute 25 break. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24456 1 (Recess) (~3> v 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to order. 3 Mr. Gad? 4 MR. GAD: I'd like to add two things if I might. 5 No. 1, it's been suggested to me that I left the impression 6 that a deviation such as the roll leads once it's 7 classified not to be a deficiency or incapable of being as 8 a class A deficiency, is then dropped and nobody ever pays 9 anymore attention to it; if I left that impression, I 10 errored. 11 There is in fact an NCR written by the Comanche 12 Peak Project on each and every deviation and there is one O k/ 13 written on the roll leads. Point No. 2 -- 14 JUDGE JORDAN: And those deviations are also 15 trended? 16 MR. GAD: I believe that they are led to 17 Mr. Hansel's collective evaluation program. 18 Point two is that the records that Your Honor 19 spoke about in terms of the testing program, there are in 20 fact such records. I can't tell you what the results are 21 but every time testing comes up with something, there are 22 in fact records of this. 23 In fact, the function of the testing program is () 24 not strictly limited to testing QA/QC or testing QA/QC 25 directly. But you could just as well go through your TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24457 , 1 testing program and find that the relay opens when it's O 2 supposed to close and what you've really got is not a QA/QC 3 program at all, but a design error, at which time you flip 4 the leads, now the relay does what it's supposed to do and 5 then you go back and change the design. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: There must be an NCR at that time, 7 too. 8 MR. GAD: It would be a TDR, at that time. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, different names. A lot of 10 names at this plant. 11 MR. GAD: For valid reasons, Your Honor. There 12 was a third point, but I'll have to be reminded of it again 13 at the next recess. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: So if I understand the answer now 15 more correctly, it is that within the scope of what you're 16 looking at, you're looking at QC deficiencies, it's just 17 that the route may be via Mr. Hansel or via NCR's, but 18 somehow you are going to look at QC deficiencies. 19 MR. GAD: Where they exist, absolutely, Your l 20 Honor. But for the purpose of telling you what the present 21 state of the plant is, not for the purpose of issuing a l 22 report card. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: That part I don't understand. You i (} 24 said you're going to trend these things and you're going 25 look at them in Mr. Hansel's part of the work, so that if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24458
-3 1 for example, there were such pattern or there was a large 2 number of things to look at, you'd be considering that.
3 MR. GAD: Absolutely. Because that is elemental 4 to telling Your Honors, that these folks are some day going 5 to do, what the present status of the construction is. 6 JUDGE JORDAN: I guess I'm puzzled by this. 7 Because if -- if the component did not agree with the 8 drawings in every respect, it would be noted as a 9 discrepancy. Now, those discrepancies are looked at to see 10 whether they are deviationes or deficiencies. But they are 11 not looked at to see whether there was an error, a failure 12 of QC. There could be -- 13 MR. GAD: I don't agree with that, Your Honor. 14 JUDGE JORDAN: I see nothing in the ISAP or 15 the -- the discrepancies, QA -- the description of the 16 discrepancies, the deviations and the deficiencies and by l 17 virtue of the definition -- well, discrepancies are not l 18 trended. There is no -- the paper is still there, yes, but l l 19 there's no -- there's no trending of discrepancies which 20 might well be QA/QC errors. 21 MR. GAD: Well -- 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Jordan is stating his l 23 understanding from reading the plan which is why we started (} 24 asking these questions. 25 MR. GAD: Well, the trouble I have is with the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 244'59
,_ 1 terminology. 'Let's take a real honest to goodness O 2 discrepancy. This is where the drawing called the cable E 3 space 10456 instead of E zero or E one 10456. That's a 4 discrepancy. It ain't a QA problem, doesn't tell you 5 anything about QA or does it tell you anything about 6 circuits in the plant.
7 JUDGE JORDAN: Why doesn't it tell you anything 8 about QA? Why didn't QA pick it up? 9 MR. GAD: Because the drawing didn't have that 10 number when QA/QC looked at it, perhaps, because the 11 drawing was reissued. Because in the diazo process by 12 which this drawing was reproduced, remember there was a (~) (_e 13 space there -- 14 JUDGE JORDAN: Are you saying that in that 15 particular 1A4 ISAP, there was no cases at all in where the 16 component did not correspond 100 percent with the drawing? 17 MR. GAD: The one exception was the roll leads, 18 Your Honor. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: There was another one where the 20 drawing was changed and there was nothing done in the 21 field, i 22 MR. GAD: There's one where the drawing was in 23 error. (} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I think there was another one where 25 the drawing was subsequently changed and nothing done in l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24460
, 1 the field, they changed the color coding or something like
( ') 2 that. 3 MR. GAD: Your Honor has obviously got it before 4 him and I don't. I don't recall that. Which could be the 5 temperature and not the fact that the -- 6 JUDGE JORDAN: Do you not agree with me that 7 there could be discrepancies which show differences between 8 the component and the drawing which would indicate a 9 failure of QA/QC, but those are not necessarily deviations 10 or deficiencies. Just because there's something that 11 doesn't correspond to the drawing, it doesn't necessarily 12 mean that it's a safety significant discrepancy. r"% k-) 13 MR. GAD: Well, Your Honor, I'm going to do what 14 the book says you should never do and duck that question 15 and the reason is, you know, if it came from opposing 16 counsel, I'd object to it, because as framed, I couldn't 17 say no. But I can't think of one. 18 JUDGE JORDAN: I leave you then with my 19 impression which I think you would want to look at and that 20 is that there could be failures that the inspections could 21 point up failures of QA/QC, but since they are not either 22 deviations or deficiencies, there's no attempt to look for 23 the the root cause. l 24 MR. GAD: The suggestion, Your Honor, is noted. [} 25 I'm not sure, and by doing so, please don't take me as TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24461
- 1 either saying, yep that's right or no it's not.
( l - v 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Sounds like something you may want 3 to clarify for us because I thought you said earlier that 4 regardless of the safety significance, there was a process 5 by which it would be looked at for a pattern? 6 MR. GAD: That's correct. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: So if that's not true, we would 8 want a calarification. 9 MR. GAD: The only problem I have is, you see, I 10 have -- you make a pretty good lawyer, you know, I'm being 11 forced, I'm being force into a narrower and narrower 12 peninsula of discrepancy with no significance whatsoever. ,G (.) 13 And you're going to ask me at some point, when does the 14 process of pursuing these any further stop, and I just 15 don't know the answer. 16 JUDGE JORDAN: Well, the only ones I know of that 17 you pursue are deviations and deficiencies and I understand 18 what they are perfectly. And those are the only ones that 19 I know you pursue and I don't know that you pursue any 20 others, I have not seen -- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I understand you to say that you go 22 beyond that and I'm not certain about that at this point. 23 MR. GAD: I've reached the point where if I were (} 24 on the stand, Your Honor, I'd need an example in order to 25 give you a reliable answer. Indeed, when I get to my TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i i l 244'62 fs 1 argument on scheduling, I'm going to suggest respectfully, 4 (_) ' 2 but quite emphatically that this kind of a discussion 3 illustrates better than any argument I've thought of yet 4 precisely why the kind of theoretical in a vacuum 5 litigation of those portions of CPRT that hasn't even been 6 finished yet are bootless. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: You illustrate one other point 8 though, which is that when you finish the task force 9 report, we need clarity on what's not covered. So, for 10 example, if there's some follow up on the matching of wires 11 and drawings, we have to know whether or not there is a 12 follow up in order to know what we're litigating when we b) N' 13 see the task force report, the ISAP on matching of drawings 14 and wires. 15 M R .' GAD: Okay. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Otherwise then the specific becomes 17 the general and we're just as bad a place as we were with 18 just the general. 19 MR. GAD: But you see, Your Honor, you know, 20 we're getting things pretty badly out of order here and 21 that will make me stumble when the time comes to it -- 22 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't believe that. 23 MR. GAD: That will get you everywhere. Frankly, () 24 instead of having poor old me up here for cross 25 examination, if you had SRT and if you had the review team
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24463
- 1 leader and the issue coordinator and all the folks that &s 2 went out and did the work and got these answers, I mean 3 that wrote these reports, you would get answers to your 4 question, you would go home happy and you wouldn't mutter 5 about why lawyers couldn't answer engineering questions and 6 we'd be advancing the process.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Shall we go on to design. 8 MR. GAD: Sure. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: See if we can be less successful 10 there. 11 MR. GAD: The nature of design in the theoretical 12 world and in the context of nuckear power plants is 13 different from construction.. And in one sense, it is very 14 much easier to test. 15 The design adequacy program, and let's put aside 16 for a moment those aspects where Texas Utilities on its own 17 has designed, has done an expansion that CPRT has then been 18 modified to take into account -- I have in mind the pipe l 19 program. Let's just put that aside for a moment. 1 l i 20 CPRT program is designed to take a look at all of l 21 the design activities in -- here I go again, 100 percent of 22 the design. It's really not 100 percent, it's the non-NSSS ! l 23 and it exclusive the other things that are given and the (} 24 like. 25 But in that set, it takes a look at the design TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i i
~
24464 f 1 activities for the whole magilla and it examines them and I-) 2 it is through, it is not random samples, but it may be 3 sampling, because if there was five times that you did a -- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: It's judgmental sampling as I 5 understand it. 6 MR. GAD: It is an engineering judgement 7 sampling. But as a practical matter in the design process 8 you only do -- just to pick one out of thin air -- 9 reactivity calculations five times and if the guy doesn't 10 know how to do reactivity calculations you're going to 11 learn that very quickly into the first one. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Assuming it's the same guy. '( / 13 MR. GAD: Assuming it's the same guy. If you 14 only had five reactivity calculations, it probably was the 15 same guy or at least the same group of people. And if in 16 fact two different organizations were doing it then they 17 are two little population -- we called them HDA's because 18 we decided there weren't enough acronyms in this case. But 19 in essence they are populations if you come at it in the 20 light of a statistical perspective. 21 And for each of these there will be either a 22 conclusion that it worked hunky-dorey or that it didn't and 23 if it didn't, why and what's the fix. And in real life the (} 24 fix would be probably be a guy go to look at all five of 25 them. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24465
- 1 And'there are exceptions. The Webster thing is V
2 an example, where you decide for whatever reasons, and I'm 3 no9 going to get pinned down on what the reasons were, but 4 for whatever reasons to skip step A, and go directly to 5 step B, and simply say we're going to reanalyze the whole 6 systen. And you have similar programs in cable tray, you 7 similar programs in conduit, there's something in HVAC 8 supports. And I don't think I'm telling you anything that 9 you don't know if I tell you that there is a high 10 probability that there will be other similar programs 11 covering other topics, each of which has been integrated 12 into CPRT. t )
\_/ 13 Commitment in the program plan is to give you 14 reasonable assurance that there are no undetected 15 uncorrected design errors, safety significant design 16 errors, in 100 percent of what I defined earlier, the 17 design activities.
18 Now, let's be perfectly candid. If the guy wrote l 19 down two plus two equals five on page one and he wrote it, 20 but he really didn't mean it because you get to page two 21 and he wrote down four, that's a discrepancy. But it isn't i 22 a deviation and it probably isn't going to get pursued any l 23 further. (} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: But to calrify what your answer 25 was, I think your answer is that you're not looking at TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t
24466 _ 1 QA/QC for design in the original sense. You're not caring 2 whether they check it the first time. 3 MR. GAD: I think that's a marvelous phrase, Your 4 Honor, in the original sense. And which is, I think, 5 funtionally equivalent to "for it's own sake." 6 JUDGE BLOCH: You know, we have a problem because 7 in December of '83 we found that there was a breakdown in 8 QA/QC for design of pipe supports. 9 MR. GAD: That's correct. 10 MR. BLOCH: So what what happens to the root 11 cause of that? 12 MR. GAD: That might very well have been been,
/ \> 13 didn't say it was, but that might very well have been one 14 of the reasons for taking that same set of designs, I trust 15 Your Honors know is unique and inherently self contained.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't understand that at all. m. 17 MR. GAD: It's a separate group of people, 18 separate organizations, separate standards, separate. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: And the QA/QC program was i 20 administered by the architect engineer? l 21 MR. GAD: It was administered by somebody but it 22 was the piping and pipe support piece of it. In any event, 23 we're taking that and we're doing 100 percent. Well,
/~N 24 again -- don't get me pinned down again, we're doing it U
- 25 over again, l
l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24467 ,_s 1 And' frankly once you've decided to do it over (_J 2 again, then there is no utility to going back and looking 3 at QA/QC in the original sense, except to the extent that 4 you find that there are prcblems that have to be pursued in 5 order to make sure that they were contained to piping and 6 pipe supports. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: To be clear, that is the consistent 8 position the Applicants have been taking. My understanding 9 is that C.A.S.E.'s position is diametrically opposed to 10 that, that they're trying to prove that there were 11 systematic management errors that led to all of these 12 breakdowns and they've been asking for discovery about 13 that. 14 My understanding is they're saying that it does 15 matter that management didn't have a system that prevented 16 these breakdowns from occurring. Is that your 17 understanding of their object contention? 18 MR. GAD: Can I have a prerogative pass on that 19 question? I don't know that that's my understanding. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: You may want to listen carefully to 21 what they state their position is later because I do sense 22 that there's a lack of communication about what the 23 opposing positions are in this case. And that has something to do with some of the problems we're having in (} 24 25 discovery disputes. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24468 _ 1 MR. GAD: At the appropriate time, which I guess
\_) 2 just arrived, I was going to tell you that when we get to 3 the discovery piece of this, I was going to with great 4 relief introduce my partner, Mr. Eggeling, and unplug my 5 chair and plug his in.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: He may want to keep in mind what we 7 just said. 8 MR. GAD: The problem is, Your Honor, that some 9 people wanted to continue pursuing QA/QC in the original 10 sense of designs and analysis that are no longer the 11 designs and analyses on which we intend to rely when we 12 come before you and say that the operating license standard 13 has been met. And then frankly, Your Honors are going to 14 have do decide whether this is a CP enforcement case or 15 whether it's an operating license case. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Their contention is, is the root 17 cause other than what you think it is then it has a wider 18 implications for the degree to which you have to look at 19 the plant and also may have wider implications of whether 20 the management system has been changed sufficiently to 21 correct the deficiencies that originally occurred. 22 MR. GAD: And our response, Your Honor -- 23 JUDGE BLOCH: That's this matter they want to be 24 able to prove, that's one of the reasons they're asking
/}
25 certain questions.
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 24469
- 1 MR.' GAD: When we sit down and say, "Your Honors,
(_/ 2 the Applicants rest," we will have offered you a basis for 3 proof that the present status of, now on design, design of 4 Comanche Peak, is complient with the operating license 5 standard, reasonable assurance that it's free from the kind 6 of deficiencies that would render it incapable of being 7 operated safely. 8 Now, if we've proved that by saying, "Look, we 9 had this here.QA/QC program and it was great and it 10 worked," they want to come in and say, "Now, wait, you had 11 weaknesses in your QA/QC program," and two things would 12 follow. One thing they'd be perfectly within their rights (% s/ 13 and, two, we'd be within the.model of the -- what some 14 people are calling the more traditional operating license 15 case. 16 But if we come in and we say we've got this 17 different approach and again, with certain exceptions that 18 make 100 percent something that has to continue to have a 19 footnote on it, we've gone and looked at it, and this part 20 of it we found was fine, this part of it we found required 21 correction for these reasons and these reasons went this 22 far into it further, and then part of this if it ever got 23 though that, we just did it over again. And you add them (} 24 all up and it's all there is. 25 And then we sit down and they stand up and say, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24470 fs 1 "Now, I'd like to present proof on why 14 revisions earlier
~
2 of procedure 4602, wasn't up to the task, or the guy who 3 was running it couldn't read the English language therefore 4 it would have some difficulty following his procedure," 5 we're going to stand up and say objection, relevance and 6 that objection should be sustained. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Their position is going to be and 8 they've stated it before, first, as of December of '83, 9 Applicants came to this board and said their plant was 10 okay. And it was only after that that Applicants began 11 looking at their plant in a new way. 12 They're going to want to know why there should be 13 more confidence now that the. management team that's left 14 over from then, and it's not completely changed, can be 15 trusted to make decisions where there's not a large amount 16 of proof broyght in by the Staff and the intervenors, but 17 they're operating a plant. 18 You see, there was a problem both in December of 19 '83 and in the spring of '84 when there were documents 20 submitted again to this board attempting to show that the 21 design was okay. 22 And the question is: Why is it that we should 23 trust the same management team and the operation of the (} 24 plant that didn't see those errors, itself, at that time, 25 and know how to correct them and find them? So that's one
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24471 5 1
,_, 1 aspect of the problem. /)
1
'~
2 And the other one is the relationship between the 3 problems that existed at that time and whether or not the 4 scope of the review at this time is thorough enough, that 5 is there may be a relationship between the extent of the 6 difficulties at that time and whether the judgment of your 7 engineers about how much to look at in different areas of 8 the plant is adequate. Because if it was bad enough, maybe 9 they got to look at everything instead of just an 10 engineering judgment of the tasks that they're going to 11 divide up. 12 MR. GAD: No. 2, Your Honor, is easy to respond O c
\-) 13 to. You take a look at what.they looked at and you ask if 14 it's enough, period. And you don't have to ask with 15 respect to 1983. Because the commitment made in appendix, 16 I guess it's B of the program plan, but I keep getting them 17 confused, is that we're going to go back, topple a rassa 18 (sic), take a look at this stuff. So you tell me that 19 you're only going to hang them by a 1983 standard is I
l 20 telling me you're going to let them off easy. I 21 The other part of your question is a little bit 22 more difficult to deal with. I could read it either of two i 23 ways. First way is to say hJw come management brought you engineering analyses that in the hindsight may be shouldn't (} 24 ! 25 have been brought to you, that might be the question. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'72
~ l I have some trouble with that question, because
\-) 2 management typically doesn't bring engineering analyses; 3 management hires engineers to present engineering analysis. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad, there's a question of what 5 responsibility management has for whatever the company says 6 to the licensing boards. My view is that when they send 7 engineers here, they're speaking for management, just as 8 when there operating the plant, the management is 9 responsible for the safety of the plant. They can't say 10 that's the engineers job. They just can't. They're 11 responsible for the safety of the plant. 12 MR. GAD: We're not talking responsibility here, G k-) 13 Your Honor. And if I go out and have the misfortune of 14 running somebody down in a rental car while I'm engaged in 15 the normal scope of my employment and my employer, if I 16 have one, is responsible, that's not what an operating 17 license case is about. What it's about is whether or not 18 the guys who we're going to bring before you to tell you 19 that there is reasonable assurance across the Board, same 20 footnote, on design, have pursuaded you. And they will. 21 That's one way to reach you -- and if they have, about the 22 design today, then that's it, 9th inning, ball game over. 23 And the fact that engineers, and I'm speaking (} 24 very hypothetically, Mr. Reporter, the fact that engineers 25 who tryed it earlier, maybe didn't do as good a job and the
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24473
- 1 fact that people who brought them in to do it maybe should ~
2 have seen something that they didn't, and I have difference 3 with Your Honor about that, is frankly irrelevant to the 4 operating license standard as it applies to Contention 5 Five. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: I just want it clear that that's 7 your point of view and it may not be the one that will 8 prevail. 9 MR. GAD: Hang on, there's more. It only gets 10 worse. I could also read your question to say why is it 11 that this board should have confidence that after we're 12 satisfied the design is okay, and after we're satisfied O s/ 13 that hardware is okay and ev.en Mrs. Ellis says so and 14 there's no more debate about that, then you say to me, 15 well, that's okay, but it was tough getting here. Why 16 should I let him have the keys to the car. My answer to 17 that is its not your car. 18 That is not within the scope of the admitted 19 contentions in this proceeding. It might be in another 20 case. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I've heard that. And the opposite 22 point of view of that one says that when there's a 23 breakdown of QA/QC, it's our job to find the remedy. 24 MR. GAD: The remedy is to fix the hardware if (~} u . 25 it's hardware QC and the re'medy is to fix the design if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'74 7 1 it's design QC. b 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I hear you saying that, but I don't 3 see anywhere where that's limited to that. It's whatever 4 remedy is appropriate for the breakdown that occurred. 5 MR. GAD: Your Honor, you know -- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Related to that, is that the 7 management may now see that there were problems in the 8 past, they still haven't committed them. 9 MR. GAD: I trust Your Honors will permit 10 something that some people might think is facetious, but I 11 really don't mean it this way. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: You have to think about that 13 because we've had a discussion in which it's possibly 14 relevant. , 15 MR. GAD: It is relevant, Your Honor, if a South 16 Texas contention is admitted in this case. Our view of the t 17 pleadings in this case is that a South Texas contention is 18 not before this board, I wish there was some way of getting 19 that settled right now. But as I understand the 20 pronouncements from on high, there icn't. 21 But to this point, this board has not yet issued l 22 an order that would recognize and I think the terminology l 23 that people use is management character and competence. To (} 24 this point this board has not issued an order that would 25 make that an admitted contention and I'm using that phrase
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24475 -s 1 in its technical sense in this proceeding. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: We had a footnote that suggested 3 that where it comes to remedy, you don't necessarily have 4 to assert a lesser included remedy. They want this plant 5 not licensed. And we're talking about an action that would 6 restrict management in some way. That's a lesser included 7 remedy. 8 MR. GAD: Talking about a TMI type remedy? 9 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm telling you if you can deny a 10 license, you can do something less than that with respect 11 to the remedy for contention. 12 MR. GAD: You can't deny this license, period, 13 end of paragraph. You can deny this license if and only if 14 on the basis of the evidence before you, you are in doubt 15 as a factual matter that there is reasonable assurance that 16 the construction and the design are free from the kind of 17 safety significant deficiencies that would be such that if 18 they were remained undetected and uncorrected would prevent 19 the machinery from operating safely. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: No, the plant, not the machinery. 21 The plant. 22 MR. GAD: The facility. Hardware, construction 23 and design. (} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Where do you limit it to hardware? 25 MR. GAD: Because that's the contention that's TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24476 1 admitted in this case. Let's back up just a second. One 7~ N/' 2 could, it's not -- 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Hold on a second. Mr. Gad, if you 4 would like to conclude your argument, that would be fine. 5 MR. GAD: I have a certain sense of a 6 premature -- well, there is no such regulation, but a 7 student could take the entirety of NRC juris prudence and a 8 blank piece of paper and make a list and say these are all 9 of the issues on which somebody has to give a check off 10 before an operating license is issued. 11 In any given case a subset of those issues may be 12 issues on which that check off is given by the licensing 13 board, as to which the licensing board is final. On the 14 entire balance of the issues, that check off is given by 15 the Staff and the licensing board has neither obligation 16 nor warrant to pass muster on them. 17 So that, for instance, we don't have a 5059 18 contention in this case and we don't have an appendix K 19 contention in this case and that's why we're not looking at 20 the ECCS. 21 I am not telling Your Honors that management 22 character and competence is not on the first list, South 23 Texas says that it is. But I am telling you that its status in this proceeding is the same as any contention (} 24 25 that might have been made about the ECCS. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24477 1 That's based on, as it must be, the pleadings in 7_ -
's >
2 the record. No such contention has been offered and 3 admitted, none was offered at the original time, twice such 4 a contention was offered under 2714A, late filed, and twice 5 it was rejected. That's the basis, I mean Your Honors says 6 I don't look anyplace and see were a limitation is. 7 Well, you know, there's no piece of paper that 8 says, "Here's a limitation." That is the basis for our 9 conclusion that so-called management character and 10 compentance. However much someone might be interested in 11 it and however much someone is going to have to give a 12 check off on it, all I'm saying is that it's not an (G_) 13 admitted contention in these. proceedings. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I hear that and it's been 15 consistently asserted and what I'm saying is you may not 16 attend as closely to what we've been saying as to what 17 you've been saying. 18 MR. GAD: If there was an order admitting it, 19 you're right, Your Honor, I missed it. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: No, there was no order admitting 21 such a contention. I'm just saying you're not reading what 22 we've been saying. 23 MR. GAD: Pardon me just a moment. (} 24 Thank you, Your Honor. Can I just summarize then for both 25 DR. JORDAN: TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24478 f, 1 construction and for design. It is Applicants' position k_) that it is our job to determine whether the plant has been 2 3 constructed with reasonable assurance that it meets the 4 criteria and that whether -- that even if the design, if 5 there has been major errors in design of certain parts of 6 the plant such say as the pipe supports or the cable tray 7 supports, that the -- a selective re-examination of other 8 parts of the plant that were also designed by the Gibbs & 9 Hill is adequate, that a hundred percent is not necessary 10 for the remaining parts of the plant. Is that right? Is 11 that the Applicants' position? 12 MR. GAD: The only quible I would have,.Your O \~/ 13 Honor, was with the words "is." I would say can be, if 14 it's done right and I predict will be in this case. 15 Depending entirely upon whether or not it pursuades you. 16 So when you say "is," I trust Your Honor didn't really mean 17 "is" as if it was before us now. But you're asking me 18 whether it ever could be. Yes indeed, that is our 19 position. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 21 C.A.S.E. next. I would hope C.A.S.E. could do it 22 in a shorter time than we've just done. And then we will 23 give Staff a chance to comment. 24 Mr. Gad, do you have a problem with that? (V~) 25 MR. GAD I just wondered what your point on the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24479 1 agenda we were just on, Your Honor. ('#) JUDGE BLOCH: The point is that C.A.S.E. may have 2 3 comments on whether you fully represented the way you're 4 plan is going and whether that's satisfactory in the 5 context of the overall case. 6 MR. GAD: All I was doing was responding to 7 questions. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I understand. 9 DR. JORDAN: And whether The Board has 10 represented C.A.S.E.'s position, as we have a time or two, 11 properly. 12 MR. GAD: Absolutely, Your Honor. 13 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to deal 14 with the nondesign issues and Mrs. Ellis will deal with the 15 design issues and we will be very brief. 16 I will just get closer to it, I'm sorry. I think 17 The Board has properly described the C.A.S.E. position and
- 18 I won't dwell on it at any length at all. I think the 19 context in which it needs to be put is extremely important 20 and I think it represents as we will argue later when we 21 get to the scheduling one of those kinds of generic issues 22 which ought to be resolved before we get into battling 23 about whether or not butt splices were properly inspected
/~T 24 in ISAP 1A3 or any other similar hardware specific item.
U 25 The context is that because neither the l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24480 1 regulatory staff of this agency, The Board, or anybody 'v 2 outside of the Applicant, itself, is actually present while 3 the plant is being constructed and because the manner in 4 which it is designed and constructed can be so critical to 5 the safety of the plant, the NRC has developed a system by 6 which you can have some confidence as a Board and the Staff 7 can add some confidence and evaluate that things were done 8 as they were supposed to be. 9 That system is Appendix B. And that system 10 requires a whole lot of paperwork. And usually what 11 happens in a licensing hearing, in an operating license 12 proceeding, is we review paperwork. O \J 13 We usually have a QA/QC plan which is adequate. 14 We usually have one who's implementation was adequate. And
- 15 we get into arguments about whether or not the adequate 16 QA/QC plan actually resolved a particular deficiency 17 properly. The intervenor will say no; the Staff maybe yes 18 or no; Applicants, of course, will say yes, 19 This case was different, although in the history 20 of the agency more typical of the recent cases than of that 21 earlier model.
22 In this case, the question arose: Was that QA/QC 23 program for design or construction, itself, doing the job? 24 (]} Now what are the implications if it doesn't do the job? , 25 The implications are that you don't know what really TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24401 ,
, 1 happened at the plant.
_] 2 A huge pieces of that plant nobody short of using 3 a blasting device could ever reinspect at this point. 4 They're lost to us absent disassembly. There are other 5 portions of the plant which nobody is currently looking at 6 because the focus of the Applicants look is to a large 7 extent dependent upon the presence of a phenomenon known as 8 allegers, how many people were willing to stand up and say, 9 "I saw something wrong." It was the starting point for the 10 TRT. It was the starting point for the CPRT. 11 And the definition of the CPRTs scope is, we're 12 looking at outside allegations, allegations that come to us 13 including outside in the sense of from a former worker or a 14 current worker who in some way or another has brought his 15 matter to the attention of everyone. 16 Let's take the pressure vessel. The pressure 17 vessel has not been the subject on which there's an ISAP, 18 there's not a DSAP, there's not a hardware specific 19 argument that anyone has made about the pressure vessel; 20 what confidence do we have that the pressure vessel was l 21 installed properly? Ostensibly, paper -- paper developed l 22 under the QA/QC program that shows that all the particular 23 procedures were followed. How does the Board know that the pressure vessel (} 24 It has to rely upon the existence l 25 was properly installed. l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
l 24482 1 of an adequate QA/QC program. O, 2 Did the failure of paper to properly deal with 3 the problems associated with cable terminations give us any 4 clues about whether or not the paper related to the 5 pressure vessel was or was not properly completed? It 6 certainly, even at a surface level, raises a legitimate l 7 doubt. 8 The CPRT was designed by the Applicants 9 presumably, as stated in their rhetoric, not in the body of 10 the plan, to take the doubts away. But what Mr. Gad 11 described today doesn't take any doubts away unless the 12 paper mistake related to something that at least rose to -- ( 13 and there are a whole gaggle.of definitions here and they 14 don't have their normal meanings that you and I would a 15 attribute to them in the real world. 16 I think Dr. Jordan was getting at them. We have 17 discrepancies; we have deficiencies; we have deviations; we 18 have NCR reportable items; we have UNSAT items. And it 19 turns out that each one of these definitions makes a huge i ! 20 difference. 21 For instance, in ISAP 1A4, we attached an
- 22 appendix to our analysis of the first ISAP 1A4. There is, l
23 as you know, more ISAP 1A4. And that analysis included a {} 24 whole list of things which were marked unsatisfactory by j 25 somebody. And then later, they stopped calling it l l ! TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
= . _- . _ _ _ .
l 24483 1 unsatisfactory, but they marked it as something else. I [_s} . 2 For lack of any other term, let's call it's a 3 boo-boo. 4 Somebody was supposed to have written something 5 down when they saw it and they didn't. Or somebody was 6 supposed to have identified something that looked odd and 7 they didn't. Now that somebody was a vital cog in the 8 system called QA/QC. And when that somebody didn't do it, 9 unless he already knew what the CPRT discovered four years 10 later, impressions which none of us I think would claim, he 11 didn't know that he was missing an insignificant item. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: In fact, he wasn't authorized to 13 decide that anyway. 14 MR. ROISMAN: Absolutely. In fact, we have some 15 whistle-blowers who ostensibly got discharged because they 16 insisted on questioning procedures and were told that 17 wasn't their business; you're supposed to do it by the 18 book. And the book said find all these problems and we'll i 19 decide later whether they have safety significance. 20 The 1A4 list of unsatisfactory items, boo-booes, f 21 turn out also not to have produced any NCR's. They also 22 according to answers to interrogatories that we got from 23 the Applicants, did not land on Mr. Hansel's desk. They They are like in the Soviet Union, {} 24 don't get trended. Except they did happen. And 25 nonfacts; they didn't happen. l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l _ - _ _ _ _ _ . -. . _.
24484 , I 1 that's what the debate is all about. /_1 . 'ws We believe that you cannot have an adequate 2 3 reasonable assurance finding in this case when you leave 4 all those loose ends untrended, unanalyzed, unresult 5 oriented, unroot caused, because they raise at least enough 6 of a doubt that you can't rely on the same system to dump 7 pressure vessel right, to pour the concrete correctly, to 8 have done the stress tests on anything in the plant, 9 because we don't know. And that is the point at which we 10 and the Applicants diverge. 11 Now, we will argue, as I pointed out later, that 12 C.A.S.E. which has since at least February of 1985, /] \_- 13 attempted to get this Board to rule on those generic 14 questions, has a right to have the Board rule on this 15 generic disagreement because Mr. Gad's view of the NRC's 16 requirements and our view on it before we ever get into the 17 quibbles over butt splices and all of the other hardware 18 issues. 19 We did not start this as a hardware case. We 20 started this and continue it as a QA/QC breakdown case. 21 JUDGE JORDAN: I want to be sure I understood 22 what you said there. Are you saying that the -- you are 23 raising questions as to the adequacy of the CPRT program That should be looked at before you go into the (} 24 overall? 25 hardware; is that correct? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24485 1 MR.'ROISMAN: That's correct. And at a later O 2 time in the argument this afternoon, we will discuss that 3 in more detail. But it's illustrative of the point that we 4 are attempting to make. 5 And the problem which I think was identified by 6 this Board in earlier orders, the problem is, and I think 7 it's the Boards order on governance of the case, in which 8 the Board made the point under its nonbinding findings, 9 tentative preliminary and nonbiding conclusions, on Page 5 10 of the slip opinion, Item 10, Applicants cannot be immune 11 from litigating the prior QA/QC program and at the same 12 time rely on that program to add confidence to the adequacy f'/ s i 13 of the plant. Every piece of this plant for which there is 14 no reinspection has only one place to go for its adequacy, 15 that's the old QA/QC. 16 They either have to reverify it by going back 17 through and reinspecting it, or they have to go back to the 18 old QA/QC. CPRT leaves huge gaps in that. And the largest 19 of those gaps is probably the failure to look for the root 20 causes of all the detected and previously unreported 21 boo-booes. 22 Let me just make one last illustration of this. 23 Again, in the analysis that C.A.S.E. did of 1A4 on Page 5, {} 24 we cited to the original investigative findings regarding How did it get started? 25 what was the original allegation? l I l f l . TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
244'86 1
- 1 And this is the quotation in part from that. %J 2 Individual A stated this situation is 3 specifically attributable to some electrical QC inspectors 4 being unqualified for their job rather than any intentional l
5 wrongdoing. That's the origin. You can read 1A4 in every 6 Rev. that's ever come out on it and you can't find any even 7 effort to investigate that question. That question, 8 whatever its validity was when the TRT got through, is just 9 as valid today. They have not examined it, because by 10 going through these various definitions, it didn't reach 11 the level of their predetermined trigger point. And the 12 predetermined trigger point is not boo-boo, it's not UNSAT, E
- 13 and it's not discrepancy, it's something higher than that 14 and 1A4 illustrates that point, be.ause Mr. Hansel doesn't 15 know anything about those issues unless he happened to drop 16 in one day when they were being talked about.
. 17 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes. We understand that. But we I 18 have also heard Mr. Gad's statement today that it doesn't 19 matter; that the present program will show that the plant 20 as built and as designed and built today will provide 21 reasonable assurance; that you do not have to go back and 22 reinspect one hundred percent. l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Jordan, I'm not as sure as you 24 are because I thought I also heard him say that it would (~~s) 25 wind up on Dr. Hansel -- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24487 1 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay. (1) 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm just unsure as this point 3 whether it will or will not be followed up on. It clearly 4 wasn't within 1A4. But I'm not sure based on the dialog W with Mr. Gad whether or not it's going to be followed up 5 6 on. 7 MR. ROISMAN: That has to do with the -- again, 8 it will go to what we'll talk about later, that has to do 9 with the shifting. The Applicants are constantly producing 10 a moving target. Now, I think on this particular issue 11 that the Board was talking to Mr. Gad about right at the 12 end of the colloquy, the Applicants have done no moving at f'/\ 13 all; not since you originally articluated the idea in the 14 governance memorandum and not since you reiterated it in 15 the denial of the Applicants' motion for modification on 16 all but the one minor point, with regard to the governance 17 memorandum almost a year ago. 18 But on many others -- 19 MR. GAD: Hold on a second. The word you used 20 there " governance." 21 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, I'm sorry. 22 The Applicants shift that focus even today as 23 they talk. What the Board can do, though, to test that -- {} 24 the credibility of what Mr. Gad said is to look at the 25 answers to discovery which were filed by the Applicants in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24488
, 1 response to the discovery that we filed on 1A4. And you
(_/ 2 will see in those answers the specific instances in which 3 it did not get to Mr. Hansel; there were no procedures that 4 were used to do the reinvestigation; no written procedures, 5 et cetera, et cetera. 6 Now, maybe at this point, they would like to say, 7 "Okay. Now we're going to change." But then you have the 8 legitimate question to ask, which in part is in the CPA 9 which we can take official notice of and that is did the 10 Applicants only change when they were forced or did they 11 change when it's right. 12 Are they only changing on ISAP 1A4 because () 13 C.A.S.E. is squeezing them and because the Board's 14 questions here are probing and on the mark or are they 15 across the Board now really going to change? And if so, 16 where is it written? 17 As Mr. Gad has said, and appropriately so, he's 18 not a sworn witness. His word carries the weight that any 19 lawyer's word carries, but it's hardly a binding commitment 20 on the behalf of the utility until it appears in Rev. 5 -- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I have a different view. My view 22 is that if the utility finds that their lawyer has said 23 something that they disagree with, they will update the 24 record. [} 25 JUDGE JORDAN: I don't feel that a commitment at TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24489 7_ 1 the moment that all of the UNSATS will be investigated. U 2 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. And I think as the Board has 3 said before, you much prefer documents o oral testimony. 4 And until you see the rev. to the CPRT that alters the 5 prccess that was used and reviewed and said to be okay in 6 ISAP 1A4, I think you have to properly assume that the CPRT 7 as interpreted in 1A4 is th'e CPRT that will be used in the 8 other 57 ISAPs. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: A little diversion. Both parties 10 were unhappy with written filings for determining points 11 before, while I am very happy with them. And I'd like to 12 explain why I'm happy. 13 MR. ROISMAN: May I make one diversion before 14 your diversion, which is one half of one party was 15 dissatisfied with written filings before. And the other 16 half of the party will, when we get To the scheduling 17 thing, be proposing at least that we start with written 18 filings on the adequacy of the CPRT in the nondesign area. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Because what I see happening 20 happened before was we had filings on pipe supports and we 21 had answers and we got a resolution of the issue and we 22 could have spent five months in wasted hearings. And we 23 didn't because we did it all on paper and it was the {} 24 minimum of effort for the mess we were in. And I don't see 25 why on a point like this one, for example, whether there's
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24490 j l l 1 1 an adequate followup on UNSATs and whether there's going to 2 be a satisfaction of the requirements of Appendix B in 3 adequacy of the plant, why something of that nature ! 4 couldn't be issolated out and tried on paper. 5 MR. ROISMAN: Absolutely. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Because there really isn't a lot of 7 expert testimony about that, it's really agreed facts and 8 what their meaning is. 9 MR. GAD: Okay. We do not -- we do not disagree 10 with that. Although -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Incidentally, if we were to do 12 that, because it's based on agreed facts, I would think ( 13 that, well it's possible it could be done on summary 14 disposition and it's possible that the old stand is 15 necessary. I won't express an opinion on that, but I 16 really don't see the reason to have experts being 17 cross-examined for credibility when the important thing { 18 that the Board understand the underlying technical issues. 19 And I still feel that that is correct. 20 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I think that is a process 21 which we favor with this important caveat. There must be i 1 22 full disclosure of information to C.A.S.E. for that to 23 happen. 24 With 1A4, there's no way to trend the deficiency 25 paper -- original deficiency paper at this point. Because l l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24491 1 we don't have-it; can't look at it.
~
2 JUDGE BLOCH: You requested it and you weren't l 3 allowed to see it? ) 4 JUDGE BLOCH: That sounds like it's more on 5 discovery and like we haven't -- let's stick to the 6 questions we were asking Mr. Gad. 7 MR. ROISMAN: The second, and the only other 8 point that I'm going really make here, because I mean 1A4 9 is illustrative of the point I think you understand what 10 we're saying and I think that was your purpose was to find 11 out, did you understand what we were saying, not to rule 12 this afternoon on whether we're right or Mr. Gad's right. n (,) 13 And I think that your questi.ons before and now seem to 14 indicate that we do understand each other. 15 I just want to stay on the question of the -- 16 whether or not the management competence and character 17 issue for operating the plant is in issue here. That just 18 for the record, it is in the Board's October 2nd, 1985 19 order. And you can read it in any way you want to read it, 20 and there is no way to read it the way Mr. Gad would like 21 you to believe. 22 This order was subject, although it was itself a 23 denial of a motion for reconsideration, was itself subject (~ 24 to a motion for reconsideration; none was filed, nothing. V) 25 And this board couldn't have said it anymore clearly. To TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 1 24492 _. 1 the extent on'Page 3, that the CPRT does not assess
\-)
2 management actions including actions with respect to this i 3 litigation, we are hopeful -- we are hopeful the Staff will , l 4 rise to fill that void. 5 If not, we will need to consider whether to 6 declare a sua sponte issue considering all the evidence 7 before us as this case is developed. 8 Now, the sua sponte power of this Board which was 9 the major subject of this memorandum is extremely strong, 10 but there's no question that on this issue The Board would 11 be more than adequately justified in doing it. 12 And in addition in all of the pleadings that (3 (/ 13 C.A.S.E. made with respect to that, we argued and the Board 14 neither resolved it one way or the other, that the 15 Applicants are wrong, that the management character and 16 competence issue is in the case and not that it's not. 17 And by the way, in the May 24th, '85 order, the 18 Board in its opening paragraph states, "Furthermore, the - 19 Board requires a current assessment by management of the 20 status of the plant and of the extent to which management 21 bears responsibility for adverse plant conditions or wishes 22 to correct or clarify portions of our hearing record." l 23 And this is a litney which the Board has l I (~T 24 reiterated over and over again. So to the extent Mr. Gad
\.)
25 is arguing that the issue is not before him, it is. And TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24493 1 the Board has put it there. And he may wish it weren't and
\ .
(O 2 he may believe that he has some right to have it taken 3 away, but to the extent that law of the case is a rule in 4 the NRC as it is everywhere else in the legal world in this 5 country, at least, that is the law of this case. 6 Now, I will turn the microphone over to Mrs. 7 Ellis just to address the design questions. 8 MRS. ELLIS: My comments probably won't be quite 9 as organized as my predecessor's, but there are a few -- 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't believe that. 11 MRS. ELLIS: -- there are a few notes that I have 12 made as we went through this. () 13 One of the continuing concerns which we have 14 expressed often is that it does matter that the Applicants 15 did not have in place a proper management system to know , 16 what was going on in the area of design, to identify design i l 17 problems and severe design deficiencies at times even when 18 they were pointed out rather forcefully and in some detail 19 and for some period of time, that they did then take prompt 20 corrective action to immediately correct those problems. I l 21 That -- there's another aspect of this which we 22 believe is being lost in the cracks. And that is that 23 there are management people at Comanche Peak in positions 24 of say, middle management authority, who make decisions, 25 who tell, for instance, engineers what to do, to have those TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24494 1 engineers sign off on documents. Those people's names will
. .s 2 not necessarily ever appear on documents themselves.
3 As far as we have seen, there is nothing in the 4 Applicant's plan to address possible problems which have 5 been caused by this -- this type of middle management 6 personnel. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: How do you know what trending 8 means? 9 MRS. ELLIS: I'm just going by what I have seen 10 so far. I have seen nothing to address that sort of thing.
~
11 And this is one of the things that we think may be falling 12 through the cracks. As I said, one of the reasons it's (')s (- 13 easy for this sort of thing .to fall through the cracks is 14 that these people even though they are decision makers, may 15 not actually have their names appearing on documents. 16 Many of those people we believe are still there. 17 And we are trying to ascertain the status of some of those 18 right now, through interrogetories and so on. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: When you say still there, do you 20 mean as part of the CPRT team or do you mean in some other 21 capacity? 22 MRS. ELLIS: That's part of what we're trying to 23 find out, too. Okay. {} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And that's one of the problems at 25 MRS. ELLIS: TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24495 4 1 the moment is-that we don't know exactly on some of them. 's J 2 We do know that some of the them are still there. 3 Another aspect of that is that when you have 4 someone who has been identified with say the pipe support 5 problems, where there have admittingly -- or hopefully 6 admittedly -- been admitted that there are problems in the 7 design of a pipe supports and the design QA of the pipe 8 supports, who are then switched from, say pipe supports to 9 cable tray supports. 10 What kind of confidence level can we then have in 11 that program, in the cable tray support reinspection and so 12 forth, or the correction of cable tray support -- O) \_ 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you talking design now or 14 construction? 15 MRS. ELLIS: Design. Still design. 16 JUDGE JORDAN: But isn't it my understanding that 17 cable tray supports will be completely reanalyzed the 18 design? That's part of the program. You don't understand 19 that? 20 MRS. ELLIS: This is one of the areas that we're 21 concerned about, is who will be doing that specifically and 22 how will these people who have been involved before in 23 other areas of the plant who perhaps have not worked on
/~T 24 cable trays previously, but have worked, for instance, on V
25 pipe supports and are now working on cable trays, how will TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24496 _ 1 they be involved in the -- either the reinspection effort J or the corrective action which ultimately is taken from any 2 3 problems identified in cable tray supports. 4 JUDGE JORDAN: I guess I'm puzzled now, because 5 my understanding is that the CPS project personnel are not 6 involved in any way in the CPRT review. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Design review. 8 MR. ROISMAN: Design review. 9 MRS. ELLIS: They will however be involved in the 10 corrective action, if I'm not mistaken. 11 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes, the corrective actions, of 12 course, they will be the only ones that can do the
<~
k_)g 13 corrective actions. But so far as the redesign is 14 concerned, the -- or the revalidation of the design, that 15 is entirely a CPRT effort and is run by -- in this case, 16 it's not Stone & Webster, it's -- Mr. Gad -- 17 MR. GAD: Ebasco and Empell, but I don't want to 18 step on anybody else's floor. They are regarded in the f 19 same category as Stone & Webster is in piping. And if it's 20 necessary to say all of the world is CPRT or project, they 21 are in the project side of the line because they are doing 22 matters of -- there is oversight by CPRT and Mr. Lavin's 23 organization and they will put their seal of approval on it but because these are reanalysis of record, they cannot be {} 24 25 done by CPRT and are not being done by CPRT. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l . _ _ _
24497 ,
,_ 1 JUDGE JORDAN: Are the contracts with Stone &
(_) 2 Webster, Empell, so on, are those contracts -- project 3 contracts, not CPRT contracts. 4 MR. GAD: Well, I don't know enough about the 5 procurement or contracting process to really know what the 6 distinction is, Your Honor. But I do know that if you 7 regard all of the world as project or CPRT, Stone & 8 Webster, pipes, and Ebasco and Empell cable tray, are on 9 the project side of the line and they must be -- for the 10 same reason that CPRT cannot do corrective action, they 11 cannot do designs or analysis of record. 12 JUDGE JORDAN: Well, I think the thing that I do fN 13 understand and I believe is correct, is that the people 14 that are doing the reanalyses of the design are not any of 15 them -- were not any of them connected with the original 16 project, Gibbs & Hill design. 17 MR. GAD: I believe that is, I'm virtually 18 certain that's true. And of course in both cases, cable 19 tray and pipes, process has to filter through CPRT and CPRT 20 together with all these other folks will be in the box 21 telling Your Honors why there remains at that time no 22 deficiencies in either category. I 23 JUDGE JORDAN: Okay. Dr. Jordan, I want to make one {} 24 MS. GARDE: Your 25 clarification to his answer on independence. l I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
1 l 24498 ) i 1 understanding ~-- Os 2 JUDGE JORDAN: We understand that there's a fair ; 3 amount of disagreement on independence. 4 MS. GARDE: I think the record should reflect 5 that there is a current department of labor complaint by 6 one pipe support engineer against both Stone & Webster, 7 Texas Utilities and MPS. And the basis of his complaint is 8 that as an MPS engineer having worked at the plant for two 9 years, almost two years, that all of the MPS engineers were 10 let go. Stone & Webster hired them all back but for the 11 one whistle-blower. And that they are the same people but 12 they work for Stone & Webster. They had worked for MPS on 13 the original design. 14 JUDGE JORDAN: I see. So that you say therefore 15 that there are many of the original project people. 16 (No Hiatus) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
"% 24 (0
25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24499 1 MRS. ELLIS: One of the things that we have 7-C' 2 expressed concern about in the past and are continually 3 concerned about and are pursuing now through 4 interrogatories and requests for documents is whether or 5 not the new individuals who are looking at the plant, CPRT, 6 Stone & Webster, whoever, are being given sufficient 7 information. Signa's recent letter, I think it was dated 8 August 4th, gives us still more concern in that regard. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Mrs. Ellis, the subject is the 10 extent to which QA/QC for design is being looked at by CPRT 11 or Texas Utilities. So this may be very relevant for the 12 later argument. I'm not sure I see it's relevant now 13 MRS. ELLIS: I believe it has already been 14 addressed in previous proceedings in some length, the scope 15 of the issues in this case, and I won't reiterate them 16 here. In particular we would call the Board's attention to l 17 our responses which I believe were filed separately in the l 18 two dockets at the time, in October of '85, regarding the 19 appeal board order. I think it is laid out very -- in very 20 much detail in that pleading should the Board need to l 21 review that. 22 Another of the problem areas -- 23 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. If that's important, l (} 24 you ought to tell us what it stands for. How does that 25 relate to whether or not QA/QC for design is being looked TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ( _ _
24500
- 1 at?
kJ MRS. ELLIS: The extent of the contention and the 2 3 issues in this proceeding were one of the things addressed 4 by Mr. Gad. It seemed to me that he was limiting them much 5 more so. And if they are being limited so that they do not 6 include design to the extent that it should be included, 7 then that is important to know. 8 And I think that the Board needs to consider the 9 Applicants' statements in light of what has been filed 10 previously as far as background, not only in what the Board 11 has said, but also in what C.A.S.E. has said. 12 C.A.S.E.'s position, which we do not believe is 13 being adequately addressed by the CPRT or by any agency 14 which is looking at the plant at this time, is that the 15 extent of the breakdown in design and design QA of the pipe 16 supports clearly should warrant a one hundred percent 17 review of design and design QA, not just in the specific 18 areas which C.A.S.E. has raised and raised issues about 19 such as cable tray supports, but also in other areas as 20 well. 21 And we are very concerned that the Applicants do 22 not seem to have responded at this point in time, at any l 23 rate, sufficiently to that breakdown in QA/QC for design (} 24 and design QA. 25 If the management at Comanche Peak has not yet TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
( 24501 f, 1 admitted the severe design problems that they have at the k.) ' 2 plant and are not ready to admit that, yes, some of 3 C.A.S.E.'s witnesses were right; yes, this is a problem, 4 and have not been able to learn from the errors of the 5 past, how can they correct those problems; how can they 6 assure that problems such as this will not arise again in 7 the future? 8 This, I think, is something which the Board has 9 to consider in all of this and consider, which we'll be 10 getting into more, with the adequacy of the CPRT plan, 11 itself. i 12 I think the only other comment that I would have b-s- 13 aside from what has already been made is regarding the 14 written filings on design. I wanted to be very clear on 15 that. I think we've made our position on that very clear. 16 One thing about us, some lessons we learn the hard way. We l 17 learned this one very well. We don't want to repeat it. l l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Your problem, as I understand, on l l 19 written filings on design, was that your deadline was a lot l l 20 tighter than the Staff's. l 1 1 21 MRS. ELLIS: I'd say so since the Staff hasn't 22 answered most of them. But besides that, I think the whole 23 manner in which it was handled, before we would ever () 24 consider agreeing voluntarily to any written filings, we [ 25 would like something like an oath in blcod from the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24502 1 Applicants that they weren't going to withdraw anything
,_]s 2 once they were in.
3 MR. ROISMAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, the 4 difficulty Mrs. Ellis had was with perhaps a laymen's view 5 of what it meant to make a deal. She put limited 6 resources, a very intensive amount of them, into dealing 7 with those issues as written filings. 8 And those resources weren't available ad 9 infinitum. She did it because she thought this was going 10 to put the issue to rest. And what she found ought was 11 that after she presented her gladiator in the ring, the 12 Applicants ran out of the ring and said they wanted to
's 13 fight another day in a different arena. And from her 14 perspective even if that's legally permissible, she found 15 it extremely. difficult to deal with. And to go through the 16 process again only to find that they would run away without 17 a resolution, without a finding, without a determination, 18 you're right, you won on this issue, they have to do 19 something different as a result, is a frustration that she l 20 is unwilling to go through again.
21 MRS. ELLIS: We don't want to try to win their 22 case by default. We want to have a clear decision when we 23 have one. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Have you concluded your argument? [} 25 MRS. ELLIS: Yes. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24503 7, 1 JUDGE BLOCH: We would appreciate the Staff's O' 2 comment on this point, from this standpoint. The Board 3 originally took the viewpoint that the method of the CPRT 4 program should not be looked at by the Board because we 5 wanted to see specific examples of its implementation. 6 I think even though at the time the Applicants 7 were urging the opposite position, that there was wisdom in 8 that and the Applicants now take the position that we 9 basically were right about that. 10 On the other hand, when details are in that 11 suggestion what actually is being done, I would hope that 12 the Staff would not be indefinitely putting off a 13 determination as to whether the method being used is 14 consistent with what the Staff wants. So the Staff would 15 form judgments at an early time rather than allowing things 16 to proceed on forever in a posture where the Staff isn't 17 satisfied. 18 My question is: Did Staff -- my understanding is 19 that the Staff has no position at all on whether Applicants 20 must look at the earlier QA/QC programs for design or 21 construction. So we would like your comment on whether 22 that's true. And if so, when we might expect a position to 23 develop on whether that's appropriate.
/~ 24 MR. CHANDLER: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the v'T l 25 Staff's views on the need to examine the original QA/QC TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
i
24504 ,s 1 efforts, which are reflected or perhaps not reflected in
.]
2 SSER 13, probably haven't changed much to date. It's a 3 wait and see -- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: That's pretty ambiguous. 5 MR. CHANDLER: That was a semicolon not a period. 6 The Staff's position at that time, and I would have to say 7 as we speak now, is of necessity a wait and see approach. 8 The Staff's evaluation fundamentally concluded that the 9 approach suggested by the CPRT was a workable approach in 10 many areas the Staff felt more comfortable -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: For the the record, I couldn't tell 12 whether you said "was" or "wasn't" a workable approach. 13 MR. CHANDLER: "Was," positive, was a workable 14 approach. But that in a number of areas it would only be 15 through implementation that we'd be able to judge the 16 adequacy of the plan; the plan, itself, as well as the 17 implementation. 18 I think the area of QA/QC indeed generally the 19 need to look at in more depth at simple discrepancies is 20 such an area. We have to wait and see what we are coming 21 up with to judge the need to go back further and decide 22 what they are -- decide whether there is a need for more in 23 depth evaluation. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: One question -- one question ('/ s_ S 25 C.A.S.E. asked today is, if they're not going to look at TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24505 1 QA/QC, are there portions of the plant in which they're [v\ 2 nevertheless going to rely on the QA/QC records to 3 demonstrate safety? So that may -- I mean, the extent to 4 which they're actually looking at QA/QC adequacy may effect 5 the Staff's judgment as to whether areas of the plant not 6 being looked at can be documented as safe. 7 MR. CHANDLER: As adequate. And in compliance 8 with the Commission's regulations, yes. We don't envision 9 the ability to abandon wholesale the old QA/QC activities. 10 I don't think I've heard that suggested, even by the 11 Applicants. But you do. 12 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes, I have a feeling that the T {ss/ 13 Applicant does feel that the- QA/QC program in the past is 14 essentially moot in that they intend to show that the 15 present plant design is adequate. 16 MR. CHANDLER: Designed and constructed is an 17 adequate plant that it complies with the Commission's 18 regulations. 19 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right. 20 MR. CHANDLER: Than it's irrelevant to consider 21 whether or not it may -- in the sense of satisfying and for 22 purposes of this Board's determinations, I would at least 23 as an initial matter I would tend to agree, because what l
/~ 24 are the teachings of callaway?
V} 25 JUDGE JORDAN: I see. You would say that it is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24506 1 adequate to -- the program is adequate without a hundred p_ 2 percent reinspection? 3 MR. CHANDLER: Maybe. 4 JUDGE JORDAN: That's really the main issue, is 5 it adequate without a one hundred percent. 6 MR. CHANDLER: Yes. And I think the Staff has 7 concluded that an appropriately structured sampling program 8 could give one the requisite confidence, the reasonable 9 assurance necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 10 Commission's regulations. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Even if it does not look at the 12 adequacy of the QA/QC program? ( 13 MR. CHANDLER: Dep.ending on the nature of the 14 problems being encountered and identified through the 15 conduct of, in this case, the CPRT program. If indeed all 16 you are talking about are observations and minimal 17 discrepancies, you may well be able the satisfy the 18 Callaway standard. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: So what you would intend to do if I 20 hear you right is to look at the matrix of what's actually 21 found by the CPRT and say, "Now given that, do we have to 22 look at the adequacy of the QA/QC." 23 MR. CHANDLER: Well, QA/QC being one of them, I don't even have the luxury {} 24 yes, I think that's right. Mr. Gad had of having somebody to whisper in my ear today 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24507
,s 1 other than Mr. Geary Mizuno.
(] 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad made a nonverbal 3 affirmation that he agreed with the chairman on that 4 comment. 5 MR. GAD: Exactly right. 6 MR. CHANDLER: Essentially, Mr. Chairman, I think 7 we would find ourselves in agreement with the Applicants on 8 that. But as I say, I can't today predict what those 9 results might be; what the Staff's view might be. 10 I hate to continually come to the Board and say 11 it must await another day, but indeed we're in the process 12 of looking at those results reports that have been
/~T
(_) 13 submitted. We haven't issued any evaluations of them yet. 14 Those are matters I think we've talked about somewhat in 15 the pleadings we filed with the Board. And I think what 16 I've said is true about design as it is about construction, i 17 by the way. 18 JUDGE JORDAN: Looks like we are at a situation 19 where the Applicant and the Staff believes that the CPRT 20 program is adequate to demonstrate, when carried out, l 21 demonstrate the adequacy of the design and the construction l 22 of the plant. The intervenors believe that this is wrong, I 23 that the CPRT as given by the plan we have in two thick l 24 volumes, is inadequate. And so the question I guess I want (~}
\_ =
25 to raise is when do we address this question? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 24508 { 7 1 MR. CHANDLER: Dr. Jordan, that's the Staff's U , 2 question, I think, in the pleading it filed in response to 3 C.A.S.E.'s schedule. That's the very pregnant question 4 that we -- I think we've left, maybe -- we asked the 5 question rather than answering a question. And in that 6 sense, the question of when? 7 That's why I was about to answer the second 8 question raised by the chairman a moment ago, that is when 9 will hear from the Staff by saying I can't honestly tell 10 you, simply because we don't have the luxery right now of 11 knowing where things will -- not where, as much as when the 12 matters will be completed by the Applicants sufficient to ( 13 allow us to reach that kind of a determination. 14 We know from I believe it's their progress 15 report, that~a large number of results reports are,due for 16 completion by the -- by October. Other matters later than 17 that. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: We're going to have a question 19 which the parties will want to address during the next 20 session of finality, which is that it looks like when 21 results reports are issued, the Staff may make comments, 22 the results reports may be re-issued, and so there's going 23 to be a question at some point as to when the results (} 24 reported is finished enough -- you wanted to address that 25 later. And the Staff may want to make some comment on TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24509
- 1 that, too. To be able to go to hearing on an area, if we
\/ 2 do that, which is what you were suggesting. 3 MR. CHANDLER: That's right, Mr. Chairman. 4 And that's why we asked the question first. We are most 5 anxious. I think a lot of the issues that we've heard 6 discussed this morning, this afternoon by the counsel for 7 both the Applicants and C.A.S.E. speculate on matters that 8 will ultimately come out at a hearing. 9 Meanwhile, I've heard some very nice opening 10 statements by Mr. Gad and Mr. Roisman. And I wish I could 11 contribute in the sense of predicting what will be shown. 12 Frankly, we are not in that position other than to say that
/ 13 we've issued SSER 13, which used and evaluates the CPRT as 14 a workable approach to resolving issues that this Board 15 must approach.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, but I feel 17 compelled. Mr. Chandler is not representing the facts to 18 the Board and I'm concerned because Dr. Jordan asked him to 19 say, "Okay. Do I undet tand where the Staff comes out." 20 And Appendix B 'o . - Er 3 is the other shoe that 21 Mr. Chandler is ignoring. 22 Appendix B says that general comments - 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Mr. Roisman, I'm sorry, I /'T 24 don't think it's appropriate at this time. You will get a G 25 chance to make your general argument and if it's TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24510 l
- 1 appropriate there it think --
f) 2 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Gad was quite free to 3 interrupt and we're right in a middle of a point that 4 Dr. Jordan seemed to be listening to Mr. Chandler's 5 misrepresentation -- 6 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board is thoroughly familiar 7 with that SSER. We have read it carefully. 8 MR. CHANDLER: And I think, Mr. Chairman, my 9 views were rather accurate in suggesting that we have not 10 concluded at this point that the CPRT is an adequate 11 program. If that's what point Mr. Roisman was -- 12 JUDGE JORDAN: In the -- not in all respects. I \_/ 13 Mb. CHANDLER: I heard the two shoes in what you 14 said. I've heard them. I 15 MR. ROISMAN: I trust they weren't lost. i i 16 MR. CHANDLER: They were bootless. 17 MR. ROISMAN: My views or the -- 18 MR. CHANDLER: No, no. 19 I have really only one point, Mr. Chairman, and 20 that has to do with comments regarding management and the , 21 involvment of management as an issue in this proceeding. 22 And as I recall the last visitation of this issue, it was 23 sometime following the licensing board's order in which the (~3 24 Applicants filed a motion for directed certification which % ,) . 25 was rejected by the appeal board. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 l 24511 l _ 1 I think the Staff's view then was that as a
~-) ;
2 discrete, if you will, South Texas type of issue, it was 3 our view that the Board had not admitted such an issue into 4 this proceeding but, nonetheless, that there were in fact 5 issues relating to management actions between the area of 6 QA/QC that were in fact relevant to the issues before this 7 board. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I suggest a recess of ten 9 minutes. Before we break, though, I'd like to suggest what 10 the procedure will be when we come back. The parties are 11 going to have twenty minutes each, maximum -- don't feel 12 compelled to use it -- to argue about their view of the sJ 13 scheduling of the case. 14 I'm going to ask that the parties listen closely 15 enough to what the arguments of the other parties are so 16 that if it seems appropriate, we can ask them to restate 17 the position of the other party, because I do sense that 18 there's been a lack of communication in this case at times. 19 So we want to make sure not only that you stated l l 20 to us what your position is, but that you really understand 21 the position of the other parties so that we can have an a 22 improved communication level. 23 Take a 10 minutes recess. l (} 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Let me say something first. l 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Jordan overruled me. ! . TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24512 1 JUDGE JORDAN: I just want to know the parties' O, 2 views on this particular item. I know that Mr. Roisman 3 feels that the adequacy of the QA/QC program as represented 4 by the CPRT -- the adequacy of the CPRT program, sorry, is 5 an issue that should be litigated early. 6 Now, connected with that, is the matter of SSER 7 13. Is that ever going to be introduced as evidence in the 8 case? And is it going to be litigated? And I guess I'd 9 like to you think about it and address that when you come 10 back, too. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Ten minutes recess. 12 (Recess.) 13 JUDGE BLOCH: The. hearing will come to order. 14 Mr. Gad, if you would begin, please. 15 MR. GAD: I gather, Your Honor, that Item 1 on 16 the agenda to which I am to address myself, the question of ( 17 scheduling. l l 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. That's the item that you got 19 the next twenty minutes on. 20 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me for the l i 21 interruption. But before Mr. Gad begins, I believe l 22 Dr. Jordan had raised a question before the break. 1 23 JUDGE BLOCH: That was related to the question. (~) 24 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. We can take it up in that
%) -
25 context, then. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 245'13 l i 7s 1 JUDGE BLOCH: It was one of the questions we (_) 2 raised in writing, also. l 3 MR. CHANDLER: That is correct. 4 MR. GAD: Your Honor, at some point, if the Board 5 would like and if you want me to do it now, though it's 6 procedurally'out of order, I would like to address four or 7 five discrete points made by C.A.S.E. I believe I can deal 8 with each with dispatch and then the Board will find what I 9 have to say useful. It does not relate to scheduling and I 10 don't know whether you want to do it separately or at some 11 other time. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Does it relate to discovery? f'T (-) 13 MR. GAD: No. It relates to -- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's do this as a separate matter. i 15 What is it you'd like to have us schedule some time for
- 16 during this conference? What is the general subject matter 17 of rebuttal that you want to engage in?
18 MR. GAD: The question of UNSATs in 1A4, the 19 question of, and I quote, " leave large gaps," which goes to i l 20 Dr. Jordan's questions about whether or not sampling can 21 ever cover the waterfront; whether or not Mr. Hansel knows 22 about the issues; the so called change in 1A4 and -- why 23 don't we quit right there. (} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Are those matters that you feel 25 confident on that you have kind of like the final word at TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24514 1 this point? 7s () , 2 MR. GAD: Well, I'm not that rash, but I can deal 3 with each of them in about 45 seconds. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: If you do that -- would it be 5 better to do that now or to do it in writing a few days 6 later after you've had a chance to to check it out with the 7 company. 8 MR. GAD: The matters that I wish to raise do not 9 require that kind of confirmation. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Sounds to me like it's an objection 11 that it would be fair because it is rebuttal for new 12 matters that were raised earlier. Are there objections to n b.) 13 his doing that? 14 MR. ROISMAN: If we're just going tc keep going 15 around and a'round, I can bet you those 45 seconds will be 16 two or three minutes each and that they will require l 17 rebuttal. We used them to illustrate points which we had 18 already made before in writing and it seems to me if 19 Mr. Gad wants to make the points, one if the Board agrees 20 with our theory on scheduling, sometime in the next 90 days 21 he'll have more than adequate opportunity to respond to l 22 full fledge motions for summary disposition on the CPRT l i 23 plan and at that time he can say all he wants to say with l (} 24 affidavits. So, no, I do not favor him going on with l 25 rebuttal on rebuttal. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
24515 l 1 MR. GAD: Now, my concern, Your Honors, is that
~'
2 at some point the transcript of this hearing will -- the 3 Board will sit back and read it and start to formulate 4 views. And I believe that there are four significant gaps 5 that should be filled in, let the Board be misled into a 6 direction it would not otherwise take. But I'll take the 7 Board's pleasure on how and when. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board would prefer that you 9 make a written filing about it. If you -- and you may do 10 that at your pleasure and then if there's a need for a 11 response, we'll decide about that at that time. 12 MR. GAD: So be it. If Your Honors please, there s_) 13 stands before us as an obtacle, whether or not it's "the" 14 obstacle I suppose is undecided, but an obstacle to the 15 issuance of an operating license in this proceeding, the 16 final disposition of the results of the CPRT program plan. j 17 Depending upon how you count matters, there are 18 55, give or take, discrete components of CPRT. Though I'm 19 quick to point out that they're not all the same, some of 20 them are very small and very focused and some of them are 21 very large and very global. 22 Of these, approximately 10, by my count, have 23 been complete and are ready for disposition and are lying l 24 on the table. Of those, some have been lying on the table l {'} 25 since February 28th, and the overwhelming bulk of them TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 24516 l 1 having been lying on the table since April or June. 7 (_/ 2 In addition, over the weekend, we took a look at 3 what could be expected in the future using the same 4 methodology by which we produced the -- 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Have we received all ten? 6 MR. GAD: The only one that may have been quite 7 received yet is 3A4, which according to my -- excuse me, 8 according to my notes was approved by SRT on August 5, 9 1986, and may still been in the transmission process. I 10 don't mind -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: So we should have 9 already? 12 MR. GAD: You should have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, O( / 13 9, 10, 11,, including 1A4 twice. . 14 JUDGE BLOCH: And the fourteen questions from the 15 Board were answered on only one of them. 16 MR. GAD: The fourteen questions from the Board 17 have been answered on five of them. One a long time ago; 18 four last week. I don't mind telling you that it should 19 have been five, but one fellow wasn't available for 20 signature. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I think there was a mail gap. I 22 think I haven't received those five, that's my problem. l 23 MR. GAD: All of that, however, prescending from 24 whether it's been on the table for twenty minutes or four { 25 months or more, is stuff that's complete and issued. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24517 _ 1 In addition, over the weekend, I scanned what is N-2 expected, understanding that " expected" means exactly what 3 we said in the program plan, between now and the end of 4 October, give or take, a total of 47 are expected to be 5 out; between now and New Years Eve, give or take, a total 6 of 53 are expected to be out. 7 It is, I respectfully submit, the duty of this 8 Board to see to the disposition of these obstacles. That 9 means with respect to each of them and all of them 10 determining whether or not they are any properly litigable 11 issues that anyone wants to litigate. And if so, seeing to 12 the timely completion of that litigation.
/ 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad, on that, what was the 14 basis for deciding the order of resolution of issues? Was 15 there any consideration given to the litigating needs of 16 parties or to approaching the Board as to how the 17 scheduling might happen so that we'd have a fair way of 18 scheduling the case?
19 MR. GAD: Well, the rate at which they come out, 20 Your Honor, is governed by two things. Well, it's governed 21 by one and that's when they're finished. But that is in 22 the real world driven by two things. 23 First is the order in which they were started and "T 24 you simply cannot divorce yourself from the historical (V 25 anticedents out of which CPRT arose. In the good old days TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24518 1 it was in response to the Staff's narrow TRT issues. And (b 2 that stuff started a long time ago, you'd expect it to be 3 out first. 4 Subsequent to that time, for any number of 5 reasons, it has been expanded and those expansions were 6 added later, they are larger in scope and for both of those 7 reasons they would be expected to be later. 8 I mean, in the real world, if we knew in the 9 beginning what we knew now -- know now would be the scope 10 of say 7C, or the design adequacy program, then it would -- 11 it didn't make sense to do 1A4 or things like that; we 12 could have rolled them all in one. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: What.I'm saying is that the 14 scheduling of the CPRT plan was set for operational reasons 15 by the Applicants, and the Board was not involved in any 16 way in determining how to mesh those operational needs with 17 the needs of the case. 18 MR. GAD: Neither. The second statement is true, 19 is accurate, the first is not. It wasn't set by the l 20 Applicants at all. SRT functions on its own and it decides 21 when it is finished with and prepared to produce a results i 22 report. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Now we're quibbling, because the {} 24 SRT is an organ of the Applicants. If you like. I can't tell them I want 25 MR. Glb: i TATE REPOR5ING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
24519 1 this one out today and that one out tomorrow. O 2 JUDGE BLOCH: But Mr. Spence could. 3 MR. GAD: No, he could not. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't see that in the plan, 5 incidentally. I don't see that they're independent of the 6 management of Texas Utility. 7 MR. GAD: The program plan says that the 8 decisions that emanate from CPRT are the decisions of SRT. 9 That's what the program plan says. It's five or six guys, 10 they function collegially. I suppose you could have a 11 three-three vote, but I haven't seen it yet. That's all 12 the approval that you need and that's what comes out. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: In any event, it's been internally 14 driven by SRT without consultation of the Board. 15 MR. GAD: Absolutely without consultation of the 16 Board, which I think would be quite inappropriate. It has 17 been driven in the real world by two things. No. 1, the 18 order in which you started and which has very little to do, ) , 19 I suppose, with -- take that back. That had nothing to do l l 20 with anybody sitting down and figuring out what we did, 21 what would be the right way to litigate. 22 The second thing it's driven by is that there are 23 some action plans that by their nature are dependent upon
/~ 24 the prior completion of other action plans. And i (_h/
25 necessarily, those aren't issued until -- the depender2 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24520 _ 1 ones are not issued until the independent ones are z# 1 2 finished. Those are the only two things that drive when 3 results reports come out. 4 Now, how we deal with this obstacle, which it is 5 the Board's duty at some point to deal with, is the 6 question of scheduling and question that by itself has been 7 before the Board for just about five months. 8 I submit to Your Honors that it is the Board's 9 duty do set a schedule based on two criteria, which the 10 Board earlier identified and I believe identified 11 correctly. 12 First is speed, which means that these obstacles A (_) 13 are disposed of, as I defined it earlier, as expeditiously 14 as is practical given the circumstances that we find 15 ourselves in. 16 The second criterion is fairness. Fairness in 17 the scheduling context means that the schedule per se, 18 should pose no inseparable barrier to the litigation of 19 legitimately litigable issues. 20 I also respectfully suggest that it's the Board's 21 duty to set the schedule promptly, because otherwise we 22 would have slippage in that decision, itself, creating 23 unnecessary and unrecoverable delay. {} 24 Now, when I tried to figure out how to organize 25 for this afternoon's hearings, I started making a list of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24521 l l
,_ 1 the pleadings ~that the Board has received sense March on
(_/ 2 this issue; there are 13 of them. They are filed by what 3 would appear to the reader to be four different parties, 4 though two of them use the same name. 5 Of the parties, only the Applicants have taken a 6 consistent position. If I went through each of the 7 pleadings one-by-one to summarize the points taken in it, 8 I'd use significantly more than -- says here my alloted 9 thirty minutes, but now you made it twenty. 10 So what I would like to do is to elect and then 11 discuss what I believe to be the present position of the 12 parties extracated from those pleadings. ( 13 The Applicant's position has subsequently 14 acquired the monitore of seriatim litigation. It says in 15 essence that each of the action plans on which the SRT has 16 signed off, has said that it is final and we approve of it 17 and it's complete and "We ain't going to do no more about j 18 it," should be up for disposition essentially as they are 19 issued. 20 This proposition -- passing the fact that it's 21 entirely consistent with the principal of acam-rasor (sic) 22 is based on the following simple facts. 23 No. 1, the program plan is comprised of discrete Now some day we'll argue about big things like (} 24 components. 25 pipes and all that stuff. But on the table today is an TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24522 l 1 issue that deals with the very narrow question of whether (') . 2 or not the wires went on the right terminals. 3 And there's another one out there about whether 4 or not when you take one of those things and bang on the 5 concrete, you get readings that indicate that the 6 compressive strength is or is not consistant with the 7 records. 8 These are discrete components. That's a function 9 of history. It's also a function of the way things are 10 operated in the real world, because even if we had 11 everything done today, and even if we brought the whole 12 thing in to this room, and we'd probably have to get a 13 bigger room, and even if the. Board said, "Okay, opening 14 gun. Let's start litigating the whole thing and we could 15 just obviate all of this debate about how we go." 16 The fact of the matter is, that the first guy up i 17 to do something would reach over to the table and he'd pull 18 off one issue and we deal with it. And then you'd pull off 19 another issue. l l l 20 You just can't swallow it all at once. So we're 1 21 going deal with it seriatim, at some point in time. The i 22 only issue is whether or not we can start it now or wait 23 until we have a table full. {} 24 second point is, as I've have sai/. is that some 25 of these components have been completed; the work has been TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
245'23 1 done; the conclusions have been reached; the report has f')h x_ 2 been written; it has been reviewed; it has been approved by 3 the SRT and it has been published. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that -- to what extent is that 5 completed? To what extent is it possible that after Staff 6 makes comments, there will be revisions? To what extent is 7 it possible that after a subsequent task force finishes 8 you'll have to go back and make revisions? 9 MR. GAD: If Your Honor asks the question in 10 terms of possible, I'm forced to only one answer. It is 11 possible. It is not programmed in any of the ones that are 12 on the table, y-(> 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's ask it a different way. Is 14 it likely that if Staff makes certain comments, you'll be 15 force driven -- you'll be making revisions. We had one 16 situation already we had to go back and look at things a 17 little differently. 18 MR. GAD: Let me get that one, if I may. That 19 was one of the points I was going to make before you wanted l 20 to here in writing. Can I do it? l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, it's relevant to the question 22 I asked. 23 MR. GAD: We heard a charge that this whole thing {} 24 was a moving target -- one of my favorite phrases -- 25 because of changes in 1A4, period, paragraph, we went to
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24524 f I I
,_ 1 something else. \)
2 Let's get out 1A4 and take a look at the 3 differences. And if Your Honors do that on the plane home, 4 you'll find the following. No. 1, no conclusion nor any 5 basis for a conclusion that was in the first one that was 6 changed. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: No substantive changes. In your 8 opinion, there were little changes? 9 MR. GAD: Nothing that was in the first one was 10 changed. We didn't change anything. We added something. 11 Here's what we added. I believe the Board gets copies of 12 Applicants / Staff correspondence. So I don'; think -- ( 13 JUDGE BLOCH: We did on this one. 14 MR. GAD: I don't think I'm letting the cat out 15 of the bag. After -- long after the action plan had been 16 published in a form that said that for purposes of the 17 review, unlanded spares would be treated by the CPRT as 18 part of the population for a lot of reasons, one of which . 19 is they were treated by TRT as parts of the population. I 20 The Staff then took the position, or at least 21 some people on the Staff took the position, that you 22 shouldn't have included unlanded spares, because by 23 definition they never get used. And by including them l because you drew a couple you really didn't get your 60, {} 24 25 you only got 52 or 54 or something like that, therefore you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24525
- 1 hadn't followed your program plan.
V 2 Now, we might very well have believed -- if I 3 told you we did, I'd be testifying; I don't want to do 4 that. We might very well have believed that there was no 5 validity to that argument whatsoever. Unfortunately had we 6 stuck with that position and had the Staff stuck with its, 7 then we would have come into this room some day and spent 8 about a day and-a-half on the issue of whether or not 9 landed spares should be included in the population. 10 Now, there is ancient precept in my trade that 11 says the best answer to a question in the world isn't as 12 good as just keeping it from coming up in the first place. O
\_/ 13 It took one day to go out and draw -- to exclude 14 all of the landed spares from the population and then go 15 back and regenerate samples until you had 60, excluding 16 unlanded spares, and this particular comment, whether valid 17 or not, went away. That was the change between No. 1 and l
18 No. 2. t ! 19 Now, the answer to Your Honor's question is that 20 it is possible that changes may happen, with results 21 reports or with anything else. It is also guaranteed that l i 22 there will be changes if after publication the SRT or the 23 Applicants believe that something not known then and known (} 24 today should be presented to Your Honors because,if you 25 didn't, then the whole thing would be unreliable, ( , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l 24526 1 1 misleading, or for anything else something we don't want to l 2 have our names put on. I 3 And the only way you can avoid that problem is to 4 say -- is for us to say or for this Board to incentive us 5 to say, you should put blinders on; don't go look at 6 anything and get away from the normal norm in a nuclear 7 power plant that says that things are inspected and 8 reinspected, looked at, tested and walked down every day. 9 I don't think Your Honors want to do that. So 10 when a results report is published, it is intended to be 11 final. It is final, final within its terms. It may tell 12 you that it doesn't address "X" issues, that that will be 13 addressed elsewhere. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Assume that you wanted to go to 15 trial on a results report until after the Staff has had a 16 chance to comment on it and issue its response; is that 17 right? 18 MR. GAD: I want to -- 19 JUDGE BLOCH: There was an ambiguous gesture. 20 MR. GAD: You asked me the wrong question. Would 21 I be ready to go to trial without it? Sure I would. Will 22 the Staff permit me to go to trial until they have 23 responded? No. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board wouldn't be real happy (~} v 25 about it. And the other problem is, if we did, you might
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, l713) 222-7177
245-27 1 have the same' problem you worried about with last cables,
~'
2 which is that they'll come up with an issue and then want 3 to fight about it in the hearings. 4 So I would suggest that for judicial efficiency 5 we might want to wait until the Staff responds. What would 6 you think about -- you don't want to do that? 7 MR. GAD: No, I'm willing to do that. I thought 8 it was a great idea. I'd like to tell you it was my idea. 9 But the problem is, you see, that something done to 10 accomodate is now being used as ammunition to derail this 11 thing so it never gets started. And I guess what I'm 12 pointing out to Your Honors is that if you permit that () 13 use -- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I heard your arguments.about that. 15 It really di-dn't do that for me. Let's assume that you're 16 right on that one, that really we could have gone ahead on 17 that one. Nevertheless it seems to me to be wise to wait 18 for the Staff to be able to testify before we tried an 19 issue also. 20 MR. GAD: No arguments. And we so proposed in 21 our original order and -- 22 JUDGE BLOCH: And I assume that it would also pay 23 at the time that the Staff has responded to have the 24 Applicants state that they're willing to go forward without { 25 making further changes. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24628 1 MR. GAD: Sure. 2 Pardon me, but I've lost a little bit of my 3 track. What I was saying is that each of the eight that is 4 on the table is, insofar as we are aware, complete; 5 everything has been done. 6 The files after the publication of the results 7 report, the working files have been indexed; sent up to 8 Dallas for the convenience of C.A.S.E. and made available 9 for the inspection. And, you know, if I'm not careful I'll 10 take care of each one of these four points. But the entire 11 file, all there is, lock, stock and barrel, nothing held 12 back, was made available for inspection in Dallas. And () 13 that's where we sit. 14 Now, we've got these ten or eleven or however 15 many sitting on the table and they're languishing. To let 16 them languish, to let them sit there, is to guarantee delay 17 if we're not doing something we could be doing. How much 18 delay is an interesting calculation, though I'm not 'sure 19 the Board wants to spend a lot of time in the details -- 20 JUDGE BLOCH: One thing we'd like is for the 21 Staff to tell us whatever they can about how much delay we 22 could expect. 23 MR. GAD: I took the Staff's proposal and I 24 played with it and I came up with somewhere between, let's
}
25 call it four months, unrecoverable delay. I took the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24529 1 C.A.S.E. proposal and came up with, if you make certain (,_) 2 wholly unrealistic assumptions, such as the design program 3 over with last week -- I'm sorry, the piping program over 4 with last week and I forget what the other assumptions 5 were, 655 days. 6 As a practical matter, we'd still be doing this 7 case in 1990. But prescending from how you do the 8 calculation, because I don't want to start a big hassle 9 over that, the fact of the matter is that conceptually, we 10 have a piece of it; it's sitting out there on the table; 11 we've signed off; we've invited other people to take a 12 look; C.A.S.E. has looked at some of it and not looked at O(_/ 13 the rest of it; interestingly enough we've only gotten one 14 set of interrogatories on this stuff while we're getting 15 interrogatories lef t and right on other things; to let it 16 sit on the table guarantees delay. 17 That doesn't necessarily end the proposition, 18 because we then have to ask the question whether or not 19 this delay is necessary; whether or not there is some 20 compelling reason why the completed results reports have to 21 continue to sit and languish. 22 Now, the Board's -- when we originally proposed 23 this, the Board's response -- and here I'm kind of {} 24 paraphrasing -- but the Board's initial response and I 25 think the correct one was to say to everybody, "What's
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24530 1 wrong with that?" And synthesizing from the ensuing 12 or () 2 13 pleadings and the last prehearing conference, a number 3 of objections arose; none of them is valid. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: We have a time problem. Can you do 5 it in four more minutes. 6 MR. GAD: No. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: That actually is an extension. 8 MR. GAD: I'm sorry, Your Honor, but it 9 originally said 30 minutes. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I read your pleading very 11 carefully. Your pleading went through that history of how 12 things changed; what the Board did and what the other ( 13 parties did in response. Are there highlights of it you 14 wanted to hit? 15 MR. GAD: My problem, Your Honor, is twofold. 16 When I originally set this up -- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: You thought it was 30 minutes. 18 MR. GAD: Right. I don't know where I got the 19 idea. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Probably from us. 21 MR. GAD: If you'll give me four, I'd skip to the 22 end. But you also asked me some questions and that's not 23 in the four minutes. That's why I added a couple of {} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: 25 minutes. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24531 _ 1 MR.~ GAD: We got through and the bottom line L_J 2 would be that all of the objections are invalid, save one. 3 Which is not theoretically invalid, but we say has no 4 practical application. We've been debating in a vacuum for 5 the last three months whether there's any practical 6 application. This is the theory of interdependence. 7 So what we did over the weekend, because it was 8 raining in Boston, was to take out all of these objections, 9 take out our original proposed order, take out the Staff's 10 improvements to it, which Your Honors may recall you 11 thought were in fact pretty good ideas, take out the 12 matters that we described in footnote 12, which we (~) (_/ 13 sometimes call footnote 13 of some pleading, for avoiding 14 ambiguities about when discovery opens and closes. 15 We built in a mechanism to deal with this. Maybe 16 this action plan is premature because it is dependent upon l 17 something else. And we've prepared a new proposed order. 18 This, with the Board's leave, I'd like to tender up. And 19 I'll spend about whatever I've got left of the -- l l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: You want more than that? 21 MR. GAD: -- of my four minutes just pointing out 22 the changes. l 23 No. 1, it plugs in the response to the so-called l ! /^S 24 Board 14 questions. As one of the items the accomplishment (_/ 25 of which must precede the trigger date. This effectively
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 24532 i 1
,, 1 increases C.A'.S.E.'s time to look at and to respond to the
('~' )
- 2 results report by whatever our delta is, we're going to try 3 to shorten it, but we may not be able to. And it also 4 guarantees that C.A.S.E. has the responses to the Board 14 5 questions before any clocks begin to run on them.
6 This order protects C.A.S.E. from receiving 7 discovery for the first 45 days, that is a gratuitous 8 concession, but one that I thought the Board would think 9 useful so that C.A.S.E. can devote all of its attention to 10 deciding whether or not it really wants to spend its 11 resources on this particular action plan. 12 The order provides an explicit opportunity for n ' _) ( 13 C.A.S.E. to sound the alarm.of interdependence, really 14 misphrased, it should be dependence, with respect to an 15 action plan when they're out on the table so that if we 16 ever have to come back and debate this issue, they say, 17 "Look, we don't want to litigate this one until another one 18 comes out." Our reaction may be say, " Fine. We've got 19 enough on the table we can keep the wheel turning." 20 JUDGE BLOCH: In addition to which if there was 21 interdependence one of the fourteen questions would cause 22 you to point that out. 23 MR. GAD: If we thought there was dependence, we (~N 24 probably wouldn't have published. Or we would have K-) 25 published pointing out that the scope of the first is
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24533 ,, 1 narrow so as not to include the second. But even if we k_. 2 have to fight over it, at least we'll be fighting over it 3 with the results out on the table instead of the way we've 4 been doing it. 5 This order builds in a similar provision for the 6 Staff. One of the things that I was going to tell you was 7 why the Staff's dependence argument or as we had to write a 8 lot of questions argument, doesn't require that we defer 9 all of this stuff. 10 This order contains a provision for the Staff to 11 sound that alarm and then we can thrash it out with real 12 life facts in front of us. As noted it incorporates the 13 Staff's suggestions from its April 10th pleading and the 14 suggestions we made in footnote 12 on July 30. 15 It contains at the foot of it a provision that 16 will deal with a number of problems that have arisen from 17 the fact, which itself is quite permissible, of multiple 18 representation of parties. I'll tell you Your Honors that 19 that's all about, if you want to hear. It contains some 20 certain provisions that I have listed either from the local i 21 rules or from a couple of the orders I'm familiar with on 22 production of documents, which is designed to eliminate 23 hassles in the future. And finally it ends up by 24 containing provisions for flexibility, because the real (~} N-25 task before us, Your Honors, is not to set and cast into TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24534 1 concrete, reinforced or otherwise, a schedule for all 55 7,
~
2 action plans. It is to get the ball rolling so that a year 3 from now when we're all pressed, we don't look back and 4 say, "My goodness, if only I had to do it over again. We 5 wasted all that time." 6 I therefore urge this order be -- 7 JUDGE BLOCH: One question. Is there -- does 8 this order leave in effect the ordinary summary disposition 9 rules? 10 MR. GAD: It does not address them, Your Honor. 11 It seems to me that it is premature and perhaps unnecessary 12 to deal with that because you'll note that when -- this (! 13 order goes through the disco.very stage; it doesn't set a 14 date for hearing. 15 If I happen to side with Mrs. Ellis and oppose to 16 Mr. Roisman on the question of -- interesting isn't 17 it -- on the question of whether or not written 18 dispositions will be useful for disposing of any genuine, 19 genuinely contested issues with respect to these action 20 plans. 21 Frankly, I know Your Honors may not want to sit 22 through three days of hearings, but three days worth of 23 hearings is a lot less than six months worth of trading 24 pieces of paper. They tend to pass like ships in the night
}
25 and when all is said and done, don't permit you to hear, to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
245'35 1 see the people who are claiming that something is so 7- , (i 2 important. It does not address -- 3 JUDGE BLOCH: The way we did it, it did, because 4 if we needed to hear them, we would call to hear them. We 5 just leave it to our discretion instead of making it 6 automatic. 7 MR. GAD: You know, where I come from, because 8 trials are so hard to get sometimes, there is a bigger 9 press on the use of summary judgment. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Trials are a lot of fun for me. I 11 love trials. But I just don't think they work that well in 12 terms of efficiency. (- O) 13 MR. GAD: I think when push comes to shove, Your 14 Honor, getting the witnesses in the courtroom and banging 15 down the gavel and saying, " oyez! oyez! oyez!, it's time 16 to really do it," will in fact end up taking a lot less 17 time than throwing paper back and forth. That's our 18 experience outside of this particular case. And I'm not 19 entirely convinced that the record in this case is to the 20 contrary. 21 JUDGE BLOCil: Thank you. 22 Does C.A.S.E. need a recess? We have new 23 material that was just made available. (} 24 (No liiatus) 25
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 24536 i
,_s 1 MR. ROISMAN: My position is that the new c) '~
2 material has been available since the hearing started at 3 1:30. We've had two breaks. Counsel did not have the 4 courtesy to give it to us; we will not respond to it until 5 we respond in writing. 6 We will treat it as a motion and respond 7 accordingly. I feel we're entitled to that. I'm totally 8 unable to understand how an Applicant who missed one order 9 deadline without a "by your leave" or statement to this 10 Board about how it did that one, has also handed something 11 to us which we could have had the benefit of during two ten 12 minute breaks to take a look at. All I can assume is that (')\ (_ 13 it's strategy. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad, do you know what
?
15 Mr. Roisman is referring to by an order deadline? 16 MR. GAD: I have no idea. 17 JUDGE BLOCil: In our discussion on the telephone, 18 we suggested that when we arrived here today, we have the i 19 answer on the discovery question so that we could look at ! l 20 it before the hearing started. And it wasn't here until 21 after we sat down to the hearing. We discussed getting it , 22 to the room in advance and telecopying it to Dallas if 23 necessary -- you remember that discussion -- so that we'd (~) 24 have an hour to look at it before we started?
\/
l i 25 MR. GAD: What Your Honor said to me was as l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24537 1 quickly as it could be done. This thing was not printed O 2 until quarter of 12:00, Your Honor. And it was Xeroxed 3 when I got here. 4 MR. GAD: I think Mr. Roisman is saying if that 5 was the problem, given what I had said, you'd stand up and 6 say here's our problem, we couldn't meet your deadline. 7 MR. GAD: I recall no different deadline. I 8 think he said do your best under the circumstances. 9 MR. ROISMAN: I believe what you said was 11:30. 10 MR. GAD: I don't recall that at all. If I had 11 recalled it, of course, I would have explained why I 12 couldn't. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: It's a matter of an informality in 14 which we didn't record anything and I understand what 15 you're sayin'g, you're best recollection was different from 16 mine and Mr. Roisman's. That's all that has happened. 17 Mr. Roisman? 18 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think the 19 difficulty with the scheduling issue is probably well 20 captured by Mr. Gad's opening. He percieves that what lies 21 in the path between this moment and a decision on an 22 operating license one way or the other for the plant is the 23 Applicant's CPRT. (} 24 Well, I did not understand that to be the issue ( 25 in this proceeding. The issue in this proceeding is l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24538 1 Contention 5. Contention 5 is did the quality U,s - 2 assurance / quality control program for this plant fail for 3 design and/or construction. That's the issue. We're 4 constantly being reminded of that issue. 5 We have not expressed an interest in the 6 litigation of the individual hardware matters, except to 7 the extent they have some bearing on that issue. In fact, 8 the Board may remember that in the summer of 1984, it was 9 not C.A.S.E. that argued the question of hardware, it was 10 Applicants in an attempt to rebutt the C.A.S.E. allegers 11 who were testifying that they had been fired or 12 discriminated against in some way because they insisted on 13 a particular position, and that position was considered 14 unacceptable by the Applicant. 15 And the Applicant decided to defend not by trying 16 to defend by saying, "The way we deal with people who raise 17 problems that we don't agree with is to fire them and 18 that's an acceptable procedure," but rather to say, "We 19 didn't agree with there and we were right and they were 20 wrong." 21 So it is they, in their cross-examination of l 22 those witnesses, that brought all of these matters into the 23 fore. The reason that we are not willing to go to l T 24 litigation on butt splices is because the individual ISAP (~/ x 25 1A3 that deals with butt splices does not deal with any of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24539 1 the issues with which we are concerned. It does not Cs> 2 address the quality assurance / quality control implications 3 of the discrepancies, deficiencies, boo-booes, whatever you 4 want to call them, that form the foundation for the 5 allegation that turned into ISAP 1A3. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: If I understand what you've said 7 correctly, that means that you'd have no difficulty in 8 saying on the butt splice CPRT, the ISAP you'd just be able 9 to say, "We're not interested in that particular technical 10 issue," and it would be done with for the case. 11 MR. ROISMAN: No, the difficulty with that is 12 that we are only interested in that to the extent that 13 Applicants intend to use that to defend their failure to 14 address the QA/QC implications of that problem. 15 In other words, these problems in and of 16 themselves may or may not be important enough to warrant a 17 new contention in the proceeding. But the Applicants are 18 looking at the piece of the problem that is the tail not i 19 the dog. And we would only litigate the butt splices -- 20 let's take the butt splices through to its conclusion. All 21 right? l 22 Let's assume that the Applicants go out as they 23- have done, they evaluate the butt splices and they decide 24 for technical reasons, that as the butt ;;plicing now exists (} 25 at the plant, it's okay. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24540 , 1 Now, we also will assume that at the time that U 2 the butt splicing was done under then operative Applicant's 3 procedures, it should have been identified as not being 4 okay. And that someone would have had to have done some 5 kind of analysis or engineering review or something to then 6 say, "Oh, we think that this should not be a red tagged 7 item at the plant." An NCR would be written and it would 8 be dispositioned used as is. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: So the butt splice report comes out 10 and C.A.S.E. says, "No problem on the technical matters." 11 However it doesn't address the question of the adequacy 12 of -- doesn't work either. ks)/ 13 MR. ROISMAN: No, because the difficulty -- if I 14 can finish I'll explain to you where the difficulty comes 15 up. 16 Let's say that they go on in 7C, and by some 17 metamorphosis that is not apparent from the CPRT that they 18 would actually look at the QA/QC implications of it, they 19 do a true, honest, decent results -- a root cause 20 investigation, and they discover that the reason that that 21 butt splicing problem existed was truly isolated. It was 22 one guy, maybe lied about his qualifications. They did a 23 pretty decent check before. They didn't pick it up because (} 24 it was something that they wouldn't have been likely to 25 suspect he would have lied about. And that butt splicing TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24541 - _ 1 is sort of an' enclosed issue. , _) i 2 At that point, the likelihood that C.A.S.E. would 3 take its limited resources and want to find about whether 4 the butt splicing issue had been properly resolved on the 5 meters is very, very slight. Because even if C.A.S.E. were 6 to prove that they were right and that the butt splicing in 7 that particular instance should have been corrected, the 8 failure of QA/QC to find the butt splicing problem is a 9 dead-end; it doesn't have a generic implication. It means 10 very little except that one guy who lied got through the 11 system and he was incompetent and he didn't know how to do 12 the butt splicing inspections. 13 Conversely, if a proper route cause investigation 14 of the butt splicing down the line determines that the butt 15 splicing problem arose because of a generic problem, let's 16 say in trainer, and the training of the electrical 17 inspectors was deficient and the butt splicing procedure 18 was part of a much larger procedure, all of which was -- 19 the training for all of which was at the same time, one way 20 in which the applicant would attempt to fight C.A.S.E.'s 21 effort as they did this morning, to argue that the QA/QC 22 investigation should have looked at that root cause and 23 should have opened up reinspections for all of the people {} 24 who had the same training with regard to that same 25 procedure, would be to say it didn't have any safety l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24542 1 significance. (~)' 2 At that point, whether the butt splicing as a I 3 technical issue was done correctly or not, would become 4 something worth fighting about for C.A.S.E. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Why wouldn't that be open to you? 6 At that point, there would have been a finding about 7 training. The sample was not done just on the people who 8 were inadequately trained, so it wouldn't be adequate to 9 address that question at all. It would have been a general 10 sample. You now take it up at that point having only 11 conceded it in earlier point that you had no problem with 12 the technical matters about butt splcieng. 13 MR. ROISMAN: But.that's not what we would 14 concede. We would concede not that we didn't have a 15 problem with the technical merits, but that given our 16 resources, if that's the only thing that the butt splicing 17 question relates to, it's not worth fighting about. 18 Fighting over whether or not five butt splices in the plant 19 have been properly repaired or not would not in and of 20 itself be an issue that a limited resources intervenor -- 21 and 1 might add, by the way, I don't think an Applicant 22 either would probably -- in fact, you just heard them tell 23 you that, that when a Staff on a small item says, "Do it {} 24 differently. " It's easier to switch than it is to fight. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Why, having conceded the early TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 24543 7_ 1 point, you now get this evidence that the root cause was
<l ,
U 2 inadequate training. I don't see that you precluded 3 pursuing it at that point. 4 MR. ROISMAN: The problem is when we get to 7 5 what we really find is that they will say, "Since there was 6 no safety significance to the butt splicing to begin with, 7 we never looked at root cause." 8 JUDGE BLOCH: But you wouldn't have conceded and 9 at that point, you wouldn't be able to argue that that's 10 not adequate, because we've already raised the point with 11 them that if there is a particular root cause having to do 12 with training or a particular person and they haven't 13 looked at that, then a general sample won't be adequate to ; i 14 address that. It's pretty clear to me, from a sampling l I 15 theory, that if there is a specific root cause and they i 16 have only done a general sample, they wouldn't have 17 addressed the root cause. 18 MR. ROISMAN: I think you are putting your finger 19 on the question and we've seen no articulation of the 20 answer. And I assume it would have to come from the Board. 21 But as I would understand what would happen, any statement I ( 22 that C.A.S.E. would make reporting that ISAP at this stage l 23 would be used to restrict our ability to pursue the l (} 24 implications of that ISAP later on, including the l 25 implication that even under the CPRT they should have done l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24544
-s 1 a root cause investigation because the butt splicing really 2 did have safety significance and that the original ISAP 3 that said it didn't was wrong on the merits.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: So your real question is what you 5 will have waived by saying you're not interested in 6 pursuing butt splicing now. 7 MR. ROISMAN: Essentially we've already said we 8 weren't interested in pursuing these now; that we want to 9 pursue them in the context of the issues that we wanted to 10 litigate in the case. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me ask before we go on, then. 12 Is there room here for discussions about how to set up the O (_/ 13 conditions of what's waived as the ISAP's go by? 14 MR. GAD: Unless Your Honor heard something very 15 differently than I did, all they want to waive - " waive" 16 is the wrong term; " avoid" is the right term -- is having 17 to do it now. They want to wait and see about everything. i ! 18 JUDGE BLOCH: They want to know what root cause l 19 you're going to affix to a problem. 1 20 MR. GAD: Root cause -- I'm sorry, I interrupted 21 again. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: If there was, for example, in the 23 butt splicing report, four or five instances where there {} 24 was a problem and it was less than the standard which 25 raised itself to expanding your sample, but for example it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24545 1 was QA/QC reports that were inadequate, but there was not a (~)' 2 safety problem. ) 3 Now let's take a hypothetical. You look at those 4 five reports and it was all one QC inspector. You're 5 sample hasn't addressed that at all, as to how you pursue 6 that in the rest of the plants. 7 MR. GAD: Your Honor -- 8 JUDGE BLOCH: All right. 9 MR. GAD: -- we don't have 1A3 in the room here 10 this morning, but you're not discussing 1A3. 1A3 had to do 11 with whether or not a vendor's file on one particular item, 12 all right? Amp Corporation. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I wasn't addressing that, it was a 14 hypothetical. It had nothing to do with with 1A3 at all. 15 It had to do with a general question of whether -- it seems 16 to me the likelihood that in a lot of your ISAPs you will ! 17 not address the patterning or trending of deficiencies 18 because they don't rise to the level for consideration in 19 the report. You told me earlier, I thought, that those 20 would still be referred for trending. l 21 MR. GAD: You know, here's what happened -- I'm 22 going to start sounding like a broken record and if you 23 ever want to throw me out, I think it would be voluntary. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: It didn't occur to me. 25 MR. GAD: But, you know, if we could only get one TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24546 cs 1 of the things'out on the table, all right? The only thing
/ 1 .
V 2 worse than a moving target is a pea under the pod. You get 3 one of these things on the table to take a look at it; we 4 could get off these theoretical points. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: The question I asked clearly is -- 6 MR. GAD: I'm going to answer the question. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: There is no room for negotiation. 8 MR. GAD: You want the answer to the other 9 question? 10 JUDGE BLOCH: That was the only question. Was 11 there room for negotiation and what is that? 12 MR. GAD: You asked me whether or not there was (\_/ 13 going to be a lot of results reports that ducked out on 14 QA/QC issues. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: We really want to know was did what i 16 you heard lead to you think that you could stipulate a way, 17 that is passing on an issue, would work for Applicants. 18 MR. GAD: I heard nothing, Your Honor. 19 MR. ROISMAN: May the record reflect that was 20 about three minutes: l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. l i 22 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, the point -- and I l 23 don't want to overly dwell on the point -- the point is ('l 24 that for C.A.S.E.'s contention, given the way the ISAPs are ! V 25 designed, the ISAPs do not attempt to resolve the ? I l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l \ - .-- - - . - . .
l 24547 . I 1 implications of the deficiencies that the -- in alleger and 1 2 the TRT identified that required a CPRT to exist in the ' l 3 first place in the individual ISAP. 4 So we don't have any -- we don't even have 5 available the documents that would relate to that. This so 6 called " lock, stock and barrel" concept that Mr. Gad has 7 introduced into this warehouse doesn't apply to the 8 deficiency papers. Deficiency papers doesn't make it to 9 Dallas, it stays down at the plant site. 10 Our interest is in deficiency paper. Our 11 interest is in the failure to pick up problems. What the 12 Applicants are doing is they are going out and saying,
) 13 "We're going take every little alleger; we're going to look 14 at every one of his specific items; we're going to go out 15 and either fix it or explain it away and then we're going 16 to come back to the Board and say, 'The plant looks good.'
17 And we're going to say to you, 'What about the pressure 18 vessel; what about the other parts of the plant whose QA/QC 19 you've got to dec1 with.'" 20 JUDGE BLOCH: You've been asking for deficiency 21 papers and you're not getting it? 22 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Gad is making this 23 representation that everything related to these ISAPs, i {} 24 lock, stock and barrel is in Dallas, that's not true. The 25 deficiency paper related to it -- just as an example -- is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24548
, 1 all in Glen Rose in innumerable boxes not tagged in any way ks 2 to the particular ISAP. It's a separate issue, but it ties 3 in here into the question of whether or not the ISAP is 4 itself complete for C.A.S.E.'s purposes, for what we are 5 interested in the case.
6 So what are those issues that we're trying to 7 focus on in the case. Not only did the QA/QC fail, but 8 what was the cause of that failure and how much does it 9 infect the plant. 10 Pipe support failure, for instance, has generic 11 implications that are already obvious and a root cause 12 investigation that should be able to infect, if done (3 x_/ 13 properly, the entire design-of the plant. Depending upon 14 which statements from Mr. Gad we wanted to accept, it may 15 be that that's already been conceded by the Applicants 16 because at one point I thought I heard him say they were 17 doing a complete reanalysis of the entire design of this l i 18 plant except for nonsafety systems. Other times I wasn't 19 se sure I said -- l l l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: It was using these semples, these l 21 judgment samples. ! 22 MR. ROISMAN: Well, okay, that's what I thought. I 23 Other root causes and generic implications that we focused 24 on is like harassment and intimidation.
}
l 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn't understand how that last l i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24549 _ 1 point related to the scheduling. d 2 MR. ROISMAN: The reason it relates to the 3 scheduling question is that the scheduling as we see it has 4 to be scheduling that allows us to litigate the issues that 5 we seek to litigate. What Mr. Gad would like us to do is 6 to litigate a different issue, he wants us to litigate the 7 hardware sufficiency of butt splicing. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Part of what you're saying is that 9 you are passing each other in the night to use a phrase and 10 you're not not even obtaining discovery relevant to your 11 points because they're not covered in these ISAPs. 12 MR. ROISMAN: No, we're getting access to the ( 13 deficiency paper, but we're not getting it because it's 14 tied to the ISAP. The ISAP doesn't have the deficiency 15 paper boxed with it. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: It's an extra issue from your i l 17 standpoint? I
- 18 MR. ROISMAN
- It is the issue from our 19 standpoint. ISAP only becomes pertinant once we evaluate 20 the deficiency paper and begin to get an unoerstanding.
21 What we're doing is we're trying to do out own root cause 22 investigation up to the limits of the documents that are 23 available to us. {} 24 Now, those documents don't show up in these 25 ISAPs, except sporadically or sometimes, we hope, maybe in l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24550 1 7C. But they certainly aren't showing up in the ISAPs that ( )
'~'
2 we're looking at. 3 So we're not getting at root causes but root 4 causes and generic implications is what the case that 5 C.A.S.E. is presenting here is about. It's not a hardware 6 case. We don't have a hardware contention as such. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Your case, as you outline it, is we 8 believe the papers deficient in the plant; we want to prove 9 that; and as a consequence, there are portions of the plant 10 not being covered under the CPRT program. And we therefore 11 don't trust those portions of the plant. Is that the 12 principal thrust? b) s- 13 MR. ROISMAN: No,.because you focused only on 14 paper. The whole QA/QC program was not properly 15 implemented for design or for construction. These 1 16 problems -- 17 JUDGE BLOCH: And the consequence is that there i 18 also are therefore -- is therefore the likelihood of unsafe ! 29 pertions of the plant that cannot be rebutted by what 20 Applicants are doing. 21 MR. ROISMAN: That's correct.. Or detected. In 22 other words, we're really -- the problem here is that we ! 23 have the Callaway standard says, " Find out how broad the 24 breakdown is." The CPRT, if it were doing an adequate job { 25 on treating that initial phase and we're not sure whether TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24551 1 it is or not, if it were doing an adequate job of V 2 identifying all the boo-booes, whatever additional names 3 you might attach to it, that might give us a very good 4 idea. 5 If you felt based upon the breadth of the 6 breakdown which is what the SSER 11 was talking about, that 7 plant wide we had real problems with QA/QC, we had a 8 finding on that issue; then that would drive what the CPRT 9 had to do. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: What they said our answer is we've 11 got the CPRT program and whatever the breakdown is, it had 12 no safety consequence in this huge portion of the plant,
) 13 would it then at least become relevant to your contention?
14 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: It would become relevant? 16 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. Yes, it would become relevant 17 JUDGE BLOCH: But it would be in the context of 18 the QA/QC program is inadequate now, this may be relevant 19 to showing that it had no consequence. 20 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, and that's also hoe it would 21 be relevant what the safety significance was of the butt 22 splicing question and why we might choose at an appropriate 23 time to debate that, to argue that. 24 But in isolation, seen by itself, we have no way 25 of judging that. We will not be able -- this shouldn't be TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24552 1 a big surprise to anybody. C.A.S.E. will not be able to /_s\ \' ) 2 litigate every single one of the ISAPs in every single 3 issue. It's not going to happen. So -- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: What you'd like us to do is to set 5 forward the issue of the adequacy of the QA/QC program, the 6 documentation and the administration of it, and I guess 7 your view is that that isn't even directly addressed by the 8 CPRT program? 9 MR. ROISMAN: No. What our position is, and let 10 me say this, we're getting ahead of where I was on this, 11 but I think it seems more appropriate to do it than to 12 follow it as slavishly as I've got it outlined here. (G_) 13 JUDGE BLOCH: If you want to go back, I'll wait. 14 MR. ROISMAN: No, it's all right. The Staff's 15 filing plus the Applicants' filing raised one interesting 16 problem from C.A.S.E.'s perspective. We are the victims of 17 the Applicants' scheduling process. When we looked at the 18 prospects of waiting a year and-a-half to deal with design 19 issues first, it appeared to us extremely unlikely that 20 this Board would be willing to accept that. 21 And rather sit here and beat our head against the 22 wall and argue what we think is right, because we do not 23 understand how a design issue, this Board decided in {} 24 December 1983 is not going to be resolved until December 25 1987 and you can call it litigation strategy or TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24553 1 apportionment of resources or whatever it is, but it looks k'- 2 real wierd to us, the reality is you're not going to wait 3 until that work is done and you're not going to issue an 4 order directing them to complete the work a year early so 5 that our hope that you could logically decide this case by 6 first deciding whether the plant was designed correctly, 7 completely, then whether or not the CPRT program was itself 8 adequate, et cetera, et cetera, was not realistic. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Assuming your point is that you can 10 show deficiency of the paper and the administration of the 11 QA/QC program, but that these other matters of the CPRT 12 program will at that point be relevant. And you say, well,
) 13 I can't litigate all of them anyway, why will it change at 14 the point that you will have already demonstrated 15 inadequacy of the QA/QC program?
16 MR. ROISMAN: Well, the whole point is that, and 17 let me state what -- I mean, our point is that the CPRT 18 adequacy is the issue which we have consistently urged this 19 Board and urge again now, take up next. 20 The first two and-a-half hours of this proceeding 21 were devoted to the kinds of generic questions for which 22 the Applicants seem to be waiting for you to say it in 23 blood, in the form of at least a preliminary proposed 24 initial decision. And we have been asking that that be
}
25 done. And we think that this is the appropriate time to do TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i l 24554 1 1 it. k_) 2 And let me explain why I think that that is 3 particularly appropriate. And then we'll get to the 4 question of, really, the Staff's question, the one you 5 asked us, which is can you group ISAPs and DSAPs. 6 The first reason is that the whole question of 7 the adequacy of this reverification program is inherently 8 generic and subject to generic resolution. The Commission 9 decided it in Diablo Canyon, they passed on the equivalent 10 of a CPRT, and ruled as to its adequacy. They held that 11 they could do that. 12 The Staff and C.A.S.E. have both written ( 13 extensive comments on this document, identifying weaknesses 14 or strengths as the case may be and pointing out and 15 causing changes, I don't know how many ours have caused but 16 the Staff's changes are certainly reflected in the fact 17 that we're at rev. three and-a-half or something like that 18 on it. And that litigating this CPRT concept, program l l 19 plan, if you will, is no different than litigating a 20 construction permit. You're always litigating l 21 pre-implementation. 22 Now, what's different here is that we've got some l 23 implementation already because unlike the Appicants in l {} 24 Diablo Canyon, Zimmer and Consumers Power, this applicant 25 chose to simultaneously propose and implement its l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24555 1 verification program; it did not choose to wait for even (_,') 2 the Staff to give its tentative approval to that program. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Isn't the question of the adequacy 4 of the CPRT program to some extent the question of how much 5 weight to give it with respect to whatever you may or may 6 not prove on inadequacy of paper and administration of 7 QA/QC? Is it a question of wait or is it a question of 8 there's only one way to do it? 9 MR. ROISMAN: No, it's more than wait. It has to 10 do with whether or not the Applicants have a plan which can 11 answer the problems. 12 Wait is the issue of whether or not you discussed
- 13 it in the of independence in that motion for modification 14 memorandum. And in that context, you said, "Well, yes, 15 it's true that the independence of these people will go to 16 their weight." But the Commission in Diablo Canyon laid 17 down as independence as a criteria for a reverif3:ation 18 program.
19 And the Applicants have cited us Diablo Canyon as 20 the standards by which they wish to be judged. The-1 just - 21 don't chose to meet the standard. They're plan doesn't 22 have the Diablo Canyon level of independence. 23 The Chairman said in Diablo Canyon, I'm talking {} 24 about t'. 3 chairman of the Commission now, you've got to 25 have completely independent people. We're prepared to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24556 1 litigate within -- as I will explain in a moment relatively (_ \ 2 short period of time -- the question of whether or not this 3 plan as designed meets the requirements for independence, 4 just as we would have litigated if we thought it was 5 inadequate the Applicants' proposed QA/QC plan for the 6 construction permit or for operation. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: And you think that the precedent of 8 Diablo Canyon is binding here because this plant is like 9 Diablo Canyon or worse? 10 MR. ROISMAN: Well, it's like it in the sense 11 that the Applicants keep telling you that the Diablo Canyon 12 precedent is a very important precedent to establish the ( 13 principle that you can use a verification program in lieu 14 of Appendix B. 15 N o'w , I'm not sure that that reading of the case 16 by them is correct. But within the context of what they're 17 saying, the Diablo Canyon case is certainly defined by the 18 four corners of what was before the Commission in the 19 appeal board which was a verification program that included 20 among its elements a level of independence that we believe 21 is not present here. 22 Obviously our purpose here is not to litigate 23 this afternoon that question with you but rather to point 24 out that that is a type of generic question.
}
25 Second type of generic question is the question TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 y re- - m
24557 1 the Board ask'ed at the beginning of this hearing at 1:30 [_' 2 this afternoon. That's another kind of generic question. 3 Now, we are told in the Applicants' pleading that 4 it is not possible to litigate these things in the 5 abstract. That position is inconsistent with the position 6 which the Applicants took. And we put it up on the Board 7 because we think it's not insignificant for you to see 8 that. 9 This is the Applicants' filing of 6-28, 1985, 10 Page 28, and what the Applicants have said in this pleading 11 was that we must litigate the adequacy -- I'm sorry, you 12 put up the wrong one. O \_) 13 MR. GAD: Your Honor, perhaps the record will 14 note that Mr. Roisman felt no greater constraint to show me 15 his props be' fore using them than I did to show him. 16 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Gad wrote his props, I didn't 17 think it was necessary for me to give them. I would have 18 written this plan, I wouldn't have objected to arguing 19 about it eitsler. If Mr. Gad is looking for cheap shots, 20 maybe we could do it after the hearing. I 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's just continue. I remember 22 that it was Applicants' position, too. 23 MR. ROISMAN: All right. What's important is {} 24 what they said about it. "There may be issues which spring 25 from the Applicants' plan to verify quality by the CPRT. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24558 ! i
,_s 1 These issues 'related to the programmatic implementations
('~') 2 of the pending issues in the proceeding must first be 3 specified by the intervenors," which incidentally we did on 4 the 15th of August of 1985. 5 "In some, the issues should now-focus the 6 proceedings upon the adequacy of the CPRT, et cetera." 7 Now, again on Page 44, and again on Page 71 of ; 8 that same pleading which we will pass out copies that we've j 9 exerpted from those pleadings as well, the Board will see l 10 the Applicants take the same position. 11 It was feasible, it was essential, it had to be l l 12 done, C.A.S.E. did it, we actually on the 15th of August, l
) 13 even though we did not have-everything related to the CPRT 14 like check lists and we didn't have the current 15 reinvestigations, et cetera, et cetera, so it is a feasible 16 practical thing.
17 The Staff, in the earlier documents which you saw 18 up there, took exactly the same position. The issue that 19 the Applicants and the Staff now raine is did that C.A.S.E. g 20 take that position or are we somehow or another shifting 21 ground and the shorter answer to that is no. 22 On Page 2 of the letter which Ms. Garde sent to i 23 Mr. Noonan at the top of that page you will see that it {} 24 says that "It should be noted that it is C.A.S.E.'s 25 position that the plan, itself, should be litigated before TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24559 1 the ASLB and that additional hearings should be held on the 2 adequacy of the implementation of the rei.aspection effort 3 as well as the appropriateness of the proposed corrective 4 action plans." 5 That same four-step process was laid out in our 6 response to the case management plan. What we disagreed 7 with in the original case management plan was that 8 Applicant and Staff wanted to stop the hearing at the 9 conclusion of litigating the adequacy of the CPRT, did not 10 want to litigate anything else, which C.A.S.E. opposed and 11 I'm sure the Board understands why we would have opposed 12 that. G (_/ 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I remember it was the Board that 14 first took the position the Applicants now take. 15 M R '. ROISMAN: That's right and what the Board 16 said was at that moment in time, you felt that was in the 17 governance memorandum, that at that point in time, it did 18 not seem feasible to litigate, although in the paragraph in 19 question, the Board refers both to the plan and then in a 20 separate line refers to CPRT as though it's something ' 21 different than the plan so that maybe what the Board -- it 22 appeared maybe the Board had in mind something other than 23 CPRT. {} 24 But regardless of that, we come to that for yet 25 another reason that was not expressed even then by us. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24560 1 Which is the 'only way that C.A.S.E. can protect itself from 7_
;)
2 Applicants' asserted right with which we do not have to 3 agree or disagree at this point, that it can bring their 4 case back to as many times as it wants and you have to hold 5 hearings on it, is to not hold the hearings on the details 6 of the implementation until we hold the hearings on the 7 adequacy of the program plan itself. By that device, 8 C.A.S.E. is able -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: How are we going to do that? Your 10 time is over. How do we do that? 11 MR. ROISMAN: All right. First of all, in 30 12 days from the date that you issue your order, C.A.S.E. will (') (_/ 13 complete its request for discovery dealing with the CPRT 14 adequacy. Thirty days after we get the answers, we will , i 15 specify the* issues that we wish to challenge and file 16 motions for summary disposition with regard to them. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Summary disposition, 30 more days. 18 MR. ROISMAN: Thirty days after we get the 19 answers, we will file the specification of issues and ! 20 summary rejudgment with respect to the QA/QC adequacy of 21 the CPRT, not related to design questions now. I'm talking 22 only about the CPRT's adequacy on the construction 23 questions. {} 24 Mrs. Ellis's position on this on design is 25 separate, but in some ways, because the whole design TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 24561
.s 1 question is s'o skewed to the end of the hearing process, l
G 2 that's a little bit less significant than it might be. 3 Once the Board has issued its initial decision on 4 the question of the adequacy, then and only then will we 5 then want to and be ready to litigate with regard to the 6 ISAPs, DSAPs, root causes, generic implications, but we 7 think the Staff proposal that those be litigated together 8 as a group rather than C.A.S.E.'s original suggestion which 9 was that we do all design is a sound one, but we think that 10 the Staff's perception of what constitutes the group is not 11 sound. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff doesn't know yet. They're
~/ 13 going to work on that.
14 MR. ROISMAN: Conceptually, the Staff has said 15 essentially'that any item that would logically belong 16 within the group but whose completion will not be done for 17 a long time, if it relates to design or QA/QC, you 18 shouldn't wait for. 19 And we think that that's a foolish and totally 20 irrational distinction, except that the Staff is trying to t 21 hurry without any good logic, sort of a variation on the l 22 Applicants' theme. l 23 If we are going to look at the electrical group l /~T 24 then we should look at the design questions related to j (/ 25 electrical, the hardware questions related to electrical, l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24562 ~, 1 and the QA/QC questions related to electrical and deal with 2 the whole electrical group. 3 The Applicants tell us that, "well, our people 4 have finished working on some of this and they're going to 5 begin to dissipate and it would be unfair fair to us to do 6 that." 7 The Applicants people, for instance on ISAP 1A4, 8 finished most of their work in January of 1985. The 9 Applicants didn't produce the ISAP through their own 10 process for over a year after that. So that they already 11 build into their system this possibility of people being 12 lost. fh s) 13 C.A.S.E., on the other hand, has to work with the 14 limitations of its people as well. Our people don't come 15 to us by paycheck, they come to us by volunteer. When we 16 get a volunteer to work on electrical issues, that 17 volunteer will maybe be available to us for six months as 18 Mr. Palmer is at this point. 19 That volunteer works on all the electrical , 20 questions; it doesn't do us any good that he worked on the 21 ISAP dealing with one piece of it in the summer of 1986, , 22 and then we've got to go back to the QA/QC implications of 23 it in the spring of 1987. (} 24 Where is he? He's off at a new job. We can't 25 even hire him back because we're not paying him anything. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24563 1 I mean, it would be unrealistic to expect that. So to the (x \_) 2 extent that we have to take that factor into account -- 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Would it be of any assistance to 4 you to be getting some documents before the ISAPs are 5 concluded when they reach the stage when Applicants have 6 made major decisions on them such as the decision to remove 7 all the electrical penetrations, or to expand the sample, 8 would that assist you at all in your plan or is tha; 9 irrelevant to you? 10 MR. ROISMAN: No, it helps. You had asked us the 11 question earlier, I think, in the prehearing conference 12 notice of whether or not we would be able to use the ISAPs
) 13 that had already come out to help illustrate the generic 14 problems we saw, and the answer is yes, of course, we 15 would, as we have done in oral argument today using ISAP 16 1A4 and some discussion about butt splicing.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Would that put you at any 18 disadvantage in the sense that your point might relate more 19 to things that haven't come out yet? 20 MR. ROISMAN: You mean our generic flaw? 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 22 Md. ROISMAN: No, we feel that the inadequacies 23 of the CPRT are apparent, the ones that we would litigate, 24 are apparent on their face. I mean, one reason for going 25 through the discovery process is to find out as we did on TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24564 1 ISAP 1A4 that'for instance peopple went out in the field to I] 2 do inspections and they had no special procedures written 3 for them for those inspections. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: In a sense, what you're proposing 5 here is that even though the Applicants would continue to 6 have the burden of proof, that you'd present your case 7 first. Is that right? 8 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, on the question of the 9 adequacy of the CPRT. In a way, we have made a significant 10 part of that case available to the parties and the Board 11 through the critiques that we have already done, which of 12 course the Board urged us to do and we've shared those with p) (_ 13 the Staff and the Board and the parties. 14 And, yes, I mean we feel, we feel very confident 15 that the CPRT program plan cannot pass the minimum muster 16 necessary and that the earlier the Board decides that it 17 doesn't, the sooner the Applicant can redo these ISAPs that 18 have to be redone and DSAPs and whatever else is being done 19 out there that doesn't become an ISAP or a DSAP, and can 20 facilitate the process in the hearing. 21 In the end, one point on which we and the 22 Applicants agree or one of the points that they made way 23 back in the case management plan, which was nobody is going 24 to litigate every single technical issue down to the 25 implementation of the particular bolts, wrench, screw, et TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24565 1 cetera and that's true, we're not. We are focused on O 2 generic questions but we're being urged by the Applicants 3 to fight over these hardware issues that only are important 4 in the context of generic questions. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have your suggested schedule 6 in writing? 7 MR. ROISMAN: No, because that is our suggested 8 schedule. We feel -- 9 JUDGE BLOCH: You've given it. What happens if 10 you lose on summary disposition, you're ready to go to 11 trial? 12 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, of course. I mean, if the (O _j 13 Board rules that under the standards applicable to summary 14 disposition, that there are factual issues that remain, we 15 will be ready to go to trial. 16 Now, the only caveat I will add to that is that 17 the Applicants' affidavits in opposition for motion of 18 summary disposition disclose information that was neither 19 part of the lock, the stock nor the barrel, we're going to 20 want a little discovery. And we would still favor -- but 21 apparently the Applicants are unwilling to dance to this 22 particular tune -- evidentiary depositions and a minimum of 23 actual hearing time in front of the Board, i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Can you conclude in one more 25 minute? l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24566 1 MR. ROISMAN: The alternative to this approach I' . ('-)i 2 which we are suggesting here and I might add we're 3 suggesting it in the spirit of comprise, we still believe 4 that the position that we took, which is that you should do 5 design first and then CPRT adequacy, et cetera, et cetera, 6 is logical and right and the Applicants should have thought 7 about that before they decided how to schedule their 8 reverification program, is the right one. 9 But we also see the Board urging everybody to try 10 to get together. All right, that's our offer. It is not 11 an offer that comes in pieces and you can take this piece 12 and reject that piece. It's a package. And if the package () 13 is not saleable, then we're. going to want to urge back to 14 our original position. 15 What does that mean? Means that every time we 16 litigate an ISAP, we litigate every conceivable generic 17 implication issue that we can litigate in that ISAP ad 18 infinitum because we don't know that we'll get a chance to 19 look at it again. 20 We admittedly litigated in a vacuum. We 21 litigated without the benefit of the CPRTs investigation of 22 it, we litigated without the benefits of the Staff's 23 participation, but we understand the Applicants are going 24 to try to use "The isste is dead you don't have a right to 25 talk about it anymore." That's what they really are trying TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24567
.' to make is do by litigating 1A4 and 1A3 and et cetera, et (3 , 's/
2 cetera, up until now. 3 Mrs. Ellis has asked for one minute. May she 4 have the one minute and I will keep the time. 5 MRS. ELLIS: I just wanted to say on the design 6 issues that I think it's pretty obvious that it's very 7 difficult at this point to know much about what's going on 8 with the DSAPs, because we don't have them. We don't have 9 any completed results in that regard at this point. 10 We have filed interrogatories which we are due to 11 file motion to compel on August the 26th. And we're 12 hopeful that we'll be able to work with the Applicants and ( 13 try to avoid having to involve the Board as much as 14 possible in that regard. 15 Another thing I want to be sure that this is not 16 left unsaid, is that I'm not sure from Mr. Roisman's 17 description of the contention that it was clear that design 18 issues themselves have been allowed to be litigated which 19 were not caught by QA/QC, by the Board. I wanted to be I 20 sure that -- 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn't understand what you just 22 said. 23 MRS. ELLIS: In the context of stating what the [} 24 contention was about, I'm not sure that it was included in 25 what he said or was clear from what he said that design TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24568 1 issues themselves -- t
'"') 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I noticed that.
3 MRS. ELLIS: -- rather than QA/QC was also 4 included and wanted to be sure that that didn't come back 5 to haunt us at some point in time. 6 Thank you. 7 JUDGE JORDAN: As I understand, you would suggest 8 that we litigate the adequacy of the program with respect 9 to construction adequacy only and not design adequacy yet? 10 Why can't we integrate the whole thing? Or do I 11 misunderstand? 12 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, we would litigate both. ( -) 13 JUDGE JORDAN: Oh,.both. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Before we take a brief recess, I'd 15 like to ask Mr. Gad to comment on the point about if the ; 16 documents that have been finished to the point where the 17 Applicants have made important decisions based on them and 18 whether those could be made available along with finished 19 ISAPs. 20 MR. GAD: Actually made available before finished 21 ISAPs? 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, in the same manner as you've 23 making finished ISAPs available. That is, if you had the 24 confidence to act on an interim report in such a way that 25 you're going to make major changes in the plant or make a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24569 1 major expansion of sample, that you would at that point O 2 say, "Well, that document is finished enough that we can 3 share it and have discovery on it." 4 MR. GAD: That's the Friday afternoon question, 5 Your Honor? 6 JUDGE BLOCH: One of them anyway. 7 MR. GAD: This is the one that says it is 8 possible to release documents to support decisions, one, to 9 expand samples or, two, to do quote, " rework." 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 11 MR. GAD: Once again, it's not quite as easy a 12 question as it sounds like. Part one expanding samples is (3 s) 13 -- we interpret it to be a r.eference to the sample 14 expansion provided for in the CPRT program plan. The only 1 15 documents there are forming a piece of that decision, lots i 16 of brain work, but the only documents are the so-called 17 DRs, that is to say the results of the deficiencies or 18 deviations, that have been found in that action plan that 19 warrant or that may warrant the sample expansion. 20 JUDGE BLOCH: The SRT doesn't receive a report 21 and make a decision? 22 MR. GAD: Not a special report -- 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Just automatically happens without 24 SRT review? (~)T 25 MR. GAD: If it meets the criteria in the action TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 b
24570 1 plan, then the review team leader has no choice. The (,) 2 action plans says if you find "X," you will expand. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: So he has full athority and 4 discretion to do that without any supervisor review? 5 MR. GAD: Indeed he may have the obligation to do 6 it. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: But there's no supervisory review 8 before it's done? 9 MR. GAD: You mean sign off? 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Yeah. 11 MR. GAD: No. SRT will probably be aware of what 12 he's doing, and may in fact exercise the judgment whether ( 13 to go through the stratified expansion called for under 14 this kind of program or go directly to some higher stratum 15 or indeed one hundred percent. { 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there some level at which the t l 17 problems found are important enough to surface to the SRT? l 18 MR. GAD: SRT tries to know what's going on every 19 day, Your Honor. They're there every day -- well, once 20 again, almost every day. They -- it's not exactly like 21 the peer review board that sits only at the end of the
- 22 project.
I l 23 JUDGE BLOCH: So the expancion of Gample is 24 really not a formal demarcation point where there is a 25 document that's worth releasing? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24571 1 MR. GAD: I don't know how to deal with " formal O 2 demarcation point." It is not a judgment that it's based 3 upon a piece of paper called a report written for the 4 purpose of providing a decision material to that decider. 5 That's point one. Point two, the documentation is 6 available to them. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: How is that? 8 MR. GAD: Because we've been sending them the 9 CPRT generated NCRs, with CPRT DRs attached, since Your 10 Honor urged us to do it. Actually, Your Honor didn't urge 11 us to do it at all -- since we said it was available, last 12 November. 13 So that's what -- that's how we interpreted the 14 part about saying expand samples. Other part says do 15 rework. 16 And I could interpret that a number of ways, but 1 17 what I thought Your Honors had in mind were either the 18 pre-emptive TUGCO things going directly to a hundred 19 percent without going up through the strata such cotter 20 pins, or things like design. 21 I didn't really think you meant the corrective 22 action to go out and fix one particular thing or two i 23 particular things. My understanding is that for the most 24 part, where these are as the result of what CPRT has found, ( 25 situation is exactly the same. There is no such report, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
I i 24572
,_ 1 the underlying paper is that which evidences what the
(.) 2 inspectors are finding. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: You mean to say to me that for 4 example, there's no formal decision making process within 5 TUGCO about whether to spend $5 million? 6 MR. GAD: I didn't say that. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Are there formal decision documents 8 somewhere in the organization about decisions to do repairs 9 that will be very expensive? 10 MR. GAD: If you're looking for a piece of paper 11 which could be identified by anybody as the decision 12 report, I am told that the answer is no. At least that is (s/ 13 true -- again, you know, you've got to talk about what's 14 happened and what might happen in the future. But with , 15 respect to the SWEC activities for piping and with respect i i 16 to the activities from cable tray and conduit, these l 17 decisions are based on the judgments of some very 18 knowledgeable people, go out and try to find out the facts. l l 19 very well might have input from the same DRs, l ! 20 except on the design side they're called DIRs, out of CPRT l 21 and similar paper comino out of the QA/QC program. 22 They might also have access to NCR's, to 50.55(e) 23 reports, and to SDARs which are the things that give rise {';
, 24 to 50.55(e) reports. I don't think that's what Your Honor 25 had in mind. The fact of the matter is that we've TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I l 24$73
, 1 undertaken to'give 50.55(e) reports to C.A.S.E.
'w] 2 So bottom line is that we, the companies be 3 unable to identify a document that, and suspects that the 4 question made an assumption that wasn't so, except for 5 documents that they're already getting. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 7 Take a ten minute recess and then I would like 8 the Staff's comments or assistance on anything that has 9 happened so far. 10 MR. ROISMAN: Can I say one thing. I'm sure 11 Mr. Gad just misspoke. No deficiency paper's being sent to 12 C.A.S.E. We are being given access to it at the plant site h [/ w 13 in Glen Rose, it's not something that's being made to us 14 except once we've identified it and had it copied. Then 15 it's mailed up to us. But -- 16 MR. GAD: I did not misspeak. I meant exactly 17 what I said. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I heard a little heat in there. 19 That's not necessary. 20 MS. GARDE: We're getting deficiency paper and 21 NCR's from the CPRT. What we're not getting is anything 22 that doesn't make it to that classification. So like we 23 didn't get any of the raw data like on 1A4 where there were 24 unsatisfactory items. If it doesn't make it to that level, (' } 25 we're not getting it, until the results reports are TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24S74 1 released and then it's in the -- if it's there, it's in the (s t . 2 file. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: That's not even related to the 4 question Mr. Gad was talking about, I don't think. We were 5 talking about major milestones in work. All right. That's 6 a point you're going to get to on the discovery question. 7 Until it's already been resolved on the agreement you 8 people talked about. I don't know about that. So let's 9 take a ten minute break. That means we'll be back here at 10 5:28. I've got 5:18. 11 (Recess.) 12 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to order. O
's / 13 Mr. Chandler.
14 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, Staff as the other 15 parties and the Board today has received a proposal 16 revision from the Applicants proposed form of scheduling 17 order. We also heard from counsel from C.A.S.E. an offer l 18 of a comprise and suggestion for an alternative approach to 19 the hearing. 20 As Mr. Roisman we're not prepared to having just 21 heard these proposals, or seen them, to speak to them in l 22 any detail. We'd certainly like the opportunity to 23 consider them further and respond to the Board in writing (} 24 if appropriate. As we've advised the Board, the further 25 meetings this week to consider issues which will bear on TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l t
1 24575 l l
,, 1 scheduling matters, hopefully productive which will be held I) 2 later this week.
3 I think all parties will be in attendance. The 4 Staff briefly looked at the Applicants' proposed form of 5 scheduling order, I'm not sure it advanced the ball much 6 from its proposal in March, even as revised by the proposal 7 we had submitted in early April. But again, it's something 8 I'm not prepared today to say we don't want to consider or 9 should be rejected. 10 We had tried in the schedule or the approach, 11 rather, that we had submited to the Board on August 4th, to 12 explain our reservations with the schedule we had ( 13 originally proposed. 14 We had, when we, in April, submitted a schedule, 15 anticipated that the ISAPs and DSAPs indeed would be 16 free-standing, complete, final, documents which would 17 provide a basis upon which we could go to hearing, knowing 18 what it is we'd have to present, defend against or argue 19 about. 20 our experience with some of the initial results 21 reports didn't bear out our initial optimism. It may be 22 possible to work an accommodation on some of those concerns 23 in light of Mr. Gad's representations earlier, in respect (-} v 24 to the -- in regard to the nature of the undertakings the 25 Applicants performed subsequent to our questions. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24576 _ 1 For example, he indicated in the Revision 2, I 2 believe to 1A4, there are truly no substantive changes 3 made. I haven't had an opportunity, having just received 4 this while I was out at the office last week, to review 5 that document. 6 I notice a number of vertical bars in the 7 margins. But the extent to which those effect substance, I 8 can't speak to right now. Maybe it's wrong, in other 9 words, for the Applicants to handle these kinds of matters 10 by revisions to results reports. That's something we have 11 to think about, we the Staff have to think about somewhat, 12 before providing any meaningful thought on its latest n (_) 13 proposed scheduling order. 14 The logic behind the Staff's approach was to lay 15 out what we had hoped would be complete disciplines, and 16 the word " disciplines" was selected simply as a convenient 17 tool, to encompass all related issues you can, ISAPs and ! 18 DSAPs, so that the target was not only no longer moving but 19 understand the target was known and that, in fact, one of . 20 the concerns we had. i 21 In our review, initial reviews of some of the 22 early ISAPs not only was the target moving, we didn't know ! 23 what the target was yet. That compilation that we attached {} 24 to our pleading was based on our judgment as to what 25 constituted or what would constitute a complete discipline. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24577 _ 1 We had suggested in there that perhaps other 2 parties may have other views. And again that's something 3 we're open to. We think could be fruitfully pursued. We 4 also believe that while there's certainly some logic in 5 C.A.S.E.'s proposal to proceed initially with design 6 related issues, that it's not inelectable approach; that in 7 fact it may be possible to take a discipline -- 8 JUDGE BLOCH: What was the word? 9 MR. CHANDLER: I tried to say inelectable. You 10 can't buy your teeth by mail anymore. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: What does that mean? 12 MR. CHANDLER: I hope it means -- I hope it means p) \.. 13 something like necessary as morning follows night or 14 something like that. , 1 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Inexorable. 16 MR. CHANDLER: That would have worked just as 17 well, I'm sure. It doesn't necessarily follow, in other 18 words, and for that reason, we had suggested perhaps that 19 depending on the state of completion, it would be possible 20 to go forward with construction related and implementation 21 related issues to pick up on design and some other point in 22 time. Certainly if design is completed first by all means 23 let's proceed with the design. And with that in mind, we (~') 24 prepared the groups with the suggestion that with some \) 25 comment that, comment from other parties that may form the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24578 1 basis for an approach to a hearing.
)
2 I think some of the concerns we've heard 3 expressed by Mr. Roisman earlier in the context of Diablo 4 Canyon, I tend to think the Commissions pronouncements 5 there were rather case specific, certainly in terms of the 6 need for independence. But that's an issue I don't think 7 we need dwell on here in the context of this prehearing 8 conference. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there a reason to think it was 10 not a principal or decision that would be applicable here? 11 What's the distinction here between Diablo Canyon and here. 12 MR. CHANDLER: I think in Diablo Canyon there was 13 a proposal made not a regulatory requirement that the 14 verification program be performed by an independent 15 organization. There have been subsequent to Diablo Canyon 16 numerous verification programs performed by applicants. 17 They are not always independent design verification 18 programs; in fact, they're not always in fact independent 19 design verification programs and in some cases they're 20 construction verification; in some cases they'te performed 21 in the manner similar to the CPRT by organizations within 22 and to some extent subject to the utility's control, 23 there's simply no requirement in the Commission's 24 regulations that in order to provide the requisite
}
25 reasonable assurance that verification program be TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24579 ,_s 1 undertaken at'all, No. 1, and none two if one is k._) 2 appropriate, that it's been performed by an independent 3 organization. 4 I think also that Mr. Roisman overstates the 5 Staff position when he suggests that in our response to the 6 case management plan submitted last June, the Staff in its 7 reply suggested stopping simply after litigation of 8 adequacy of the plan. 9 I think we took some pains there to discuss the 10 limitations on those matters which could appropriately be 11 delegated to the Staff for its subsequent resolution, 12 consistent with the Commission case law on matters left to 13 the Staff outside of the hearing context. 14 Again, Mr. Chairman, I think I could be very 15 brief and just say I think our pleading lays out the reason 16 for our admitted change in position on scheduling. We 17 certainly believe that or would like to consider the 18 proposals put forward this afternoon by both the Applicants 19 and by C.A.S.E. and see if any meaningful compromise can't 20 be reached on those matters. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Chandler, is the Staff able to 22 address paragraphs 1 and 3 of our prehearing conference 23 memorandum of August 6th? {} 24 MR. CHANDLER: Certainly the first sentence of 25 Item 1, is something that is better addressed by the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
245-80 1 Applicants in'any event. And the last sentence obviously 7 ' (._) 2 is something we can't respond to. 3 I'm not in a position, to say, Mr. Chairman, that 4 there's been completion on any of the items sufficient to 5 suggest that we could get to an early hearing in view of 6 our position that these things ought to be grouped by 7 discipline. I am not aware that any completed discipline 8 has been completed. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: That's to say that you're not 10 answering the question. The question is really similar to 11 what C.A.S.E. is proposing to do. We asked people to be 12 ready to respond to that kind of thing. And it really is, 13 are there generic issues some of which may have been 14 spotted in the SSER which could be litigated. Now, 15 C.A.S.E. has given us a specific way to try to do that. 16 Why not do it? 17 MR. CHANDLER: At one point in time, I think it 18 may have been desirable to go forward with that. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: So what changed? 20 MR. CHANDLER What changed, I think so much 21 implementation has been completed at this point that we 22 don't think it would be productive to severe the two 23 issues, but rather, you know, take the plan, itself, along (} 24 with the implementation. If you want, that is part of your 25 question three, I believe. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24581 1 JUDGE BLOCH: C.A.S.E. said it could do that. ( i . '~ That is to the extent that we have already completed 2 3 reports, the generic issues would be litigated partly by 4 the parties referring to the specific reports as to the 5 truth of generic issues. 6 MR. CHANDLER: My concern, Mr. Chairman, is the 7 concern that was expressed I think by the Staff in its 8 pleading which is I'm not sure that we have a target yet 9 defined by those reports. Until a whole issue is 10 completed, I just, when we looked at these, we just didn't 11 have the confidence that the -- that ongoing work, and 12 subsequent work, wouldn't somehow affect already completed
) 13 work in such a way as to make hearings right now just 14 unproductive.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess when I'm done I'm going to 16 ask the Applicants if they're able to respond as to whether 17 they too think there should be delay in the schedules 18 proposed C.A.S.E.. If we go can C.A.S.E.'s idea is there 19 enough already done that you have specific examples of 20 adequacy or would you want under that scheme to have a 21 delay. 22 And now going on to question three. 23 MR. CHANDLER: The answer I just gave you, 24 Mr. Chairman, I think is the same thing. That's correct. (~} %/ 25 JUDGE JORDAN: The Staff had in SSER 13 a number TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
T 24582 1 of reservations concerning the adequacy. On the other (~ . i,' 'h/ 2 hand, I would say for the the most part SSER 13 is positive 3 and has concluded for the most part that the program plan 4 is adequate. 5 Now, is the Staff ready to go ahead with 6 litigation say on those items that they have said are 7 adequate? And I can read for you a number of conclusions. 8 MR. CHANDLER: Sure. I know that there are quite 9 a number of conclusions in here which are quite positive 10 and has passed favorably on the adequacy of the plan, 11 itself. No question about that. Our position at this 12 point is that it simply wouldn't be productive to take (m (_) 13 little-snips of the CPRT program plan, separate'them from 14 implementation, I think that's what Dr. Jordan was just 15 asking. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: No. 17 JUDGE JORDAN: No, I was referring now to the 18 Staff has put out this SSER 13 and concluded that for the 19 most part, that the program is adequate. Therefore, and 20 this is exactly what Mr. Roisman says is inadequate and 21 he's ready to go to litigation on that question. Why isn't 22 the Staff ready because they have concluded in that for the 23 most part it is adequate. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And interestingly you were ready to 25 go to trial on it when you knew less. Now you know more TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24583 _ 1 and you say you don't want to do it. '~' 2 MR. CHANDLER: I'm not sure we know more now in a 3 sense. We've seen much more in terms of implementation, 4 certainly. We had -- the reservations that we had at that 5 time were not insignificant. They were in relatively 6 discrete areas, but they were significant areas. 7 The comments and concerns expressed I think in 8 Appendix B, are not trivial issues and if you read other 9 portions of the conclusions section elsewhere, particularly 10 in the design area, there were a number of issues of some 11 real consequence relating to HDAs, for example. 12 In addition, as I said earlier, I think that (D s/ 13 enough has occurred in terms of implementation that it 14 appears to us to be more productive to await completion of 15 implementation on these areas rather than severing them and 16 go to hearing on something. I think they are discrete 17 issues; I don't think they are as broad as perhaps you 18 believe them to be. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Have you concluded? 20 MR. CHANDLER: Yes. Oh, let me just ask a 21 question that Dr. Jordan had asked earlier. It would 22 certainly be our intention to offer SSER 13 in evidence at 23 the appropriate time in the hearing. 24 JUDGE JORDAN: But that's going to come very late 25 after the CPRT is completed? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24584 1 MR. CHANDLER: It would depend on whether we I] \ 2 resume hearings on how the issues are cast at that point in 3 time and the relevance of the document at that point in 4 time. I suspect that since this talk to the adequacy, the 5 first time the issue of adequacy comes up and we offer a 6 Staff witness, there will be need for some testimony and I 7 assume again predicting what likely will occurr, that this 8 will have some bearing on it and will constitute a piece of 9 the testimony or evidence to be offered. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad, seems to me there would be 11 some advantages to going forward with C.A.S.E.'s 12 suggestion. One of them would be that we'd be getting to a () 13 fairly early determination of this case, that C.A.S.E. 14 would be having to prove what it thinks is wrong with the 15 general pattern of the QA/0C program at this plant fairly 16 quickly and Applicants would have a chance to respond. 17 In addition, if they fail, we develop some views 18 about the inadequacy of the present CPRT plan, we'd be able 19 to fix it while there's still time to fix it. How do you 20 feel about the suggestion? And if we went ahead with 21 C.A.S.E.'s plan, would you need more time than C.A.S.E. is 22 suggesting for the litigation schedule? 23 MR. GAD: I can't answer the last part until I've {} 24 had a chance to think about it, Your Honor, because 25 candidly I listen to it and I listened to it real clearly, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l i 24585 1 but I had troubles understanding what it was. O' 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, it's simple. There's only 3 two deadlines in it. Thirty days from now, thirty days 4 from the time we issue an order, they would conclude their 5 last discovery request. At the time that you have finished 6 completing your answers to the discovery, which I take it 7 means whatever litigation has to occur over whether you've 8 answered properly, then there would be more days within 9 which they could file a summary disposition' motion or if 10 they don't, we go to trial. 11 They file at summary disposition, we would look 12 at it and look at your responses and if we think there's a - 13 genuine issue, we would sit it for trial. 14 That's really a fairly fast schedule. 15 M R *. GAD: As you have outlined the schedule I 16 guess I have no problem. I guess my problem is, Your Honot 17 used the term "it" three times knew that recititation and I 18 don't know precisely what "it" is. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: They're going to raise all of their 20 contentions about the inadequacy of the CPRT -- well, first 21 of all, all of their contentions about the inadequacy of 22 the paper documentation of the Comanche Peak Plant in 23 construction and design. And related to that the {} 24 inadequacy of the CPRT program plan to respond to those 25 deficiencies. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 24586 1 MR. GAD: Both issues? 2 JUDGE BLOCH: That is correct, Mr. Roisman. , 3 MR. ROISMAN: No, I think that what we're going 4 to litigate is we're going to take as a premises that a 5 plan is needed for reverification and we're going to look 6 and see. The Applicants put a proposal on the table at a 7 time when we were trying to get the Board to rule that the 8 whole plant had broken down and you remember back a year 9 ago when we debated this was the real issue was on scope 10 and we then said in our first pleading on scheduling that 11 we were prepared to postpone the scope debate until the 12 end. We saw the problems of trying to resolve the scope ( 13 debate up front. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Change the word " scope debate," - 15 something more that will inform rae. 16 MR. ROISMAN: The question of how broad the CPRT 17 should be committed at the outset. Should it say at the 18 outset that we're doing a 100 percent reinspection and the 19 only way that we can go awaj from 100 percent reinspection 20 is by proving certain things as a result of what we're l 21 doing, or do you start with the CPRT as it's now designed 22 and say we will step our way up all the way to a hundred 23 percent if certain conditions are met. {} 24 JUDGE BLOCH: What's the predicate for the 25 litigation?
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24587 1 MR.'ROISMAN: The predicate for the litigation is ('~') 2 that the process by which the CPRT will decide how it's 3 going to approach those questions, that that process is 4 flawed; that for instance, it is not a fair test of whether 5 you need a one hundred percent reinspection to 6 automatically throw out all of the boo-booes that don't 7 rise to the level of discrepancies. That it's not a fair 8 test of the increase to a hundred percent reinspection if 9 you are automatically not having independent evaluation of 10 safety significance. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: So what you want to do is to 12 litigate solely the question of the adequacy of the CPRT () 13 program to respond to possible QA/QC brakedowns. 14 MR. ROISMAN: Well, we have a TRT that the CPRT 15 is purporting go to deal with and that the alleged, what 16 the CPRT is presented to us is, "This is the solution to 17 allegations." And what we're looking at is, is does it 18 have the capacity to solve those or is it inherently 19 incapable of solving them? 20 JUDGE BLOCH: You want to litigate the adequacy 21 of the CPRT program to respond to the pending allegations? 22 JUDGE JORDAN: You would limit it to external 23 issues and not the internal issues? 24 MR. ROISMAN: I'm sorry? 25 JUDGE JORDAN: I would limited the adequacy to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24588 1 the external issues and not the internal issues? (~') .
"' MR. ROISMAN: No, but the -- in 1984, we had a 2
3 plant which Applicants said is licenseable now, we need 4 nothing more to do, we're ready to fuel load. Since that 5 time, the situation has changed. They have proposed the 6 CPRT to bring them back to that moment in time when they'd 7 be able to say that. What we want to litigate is the 8 question is the CPRT inherently incapable of doing that. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Gad, that clarified for me what 10 the proposal was. Does it help you to respond to it? 11 MR. GAD: Not significantly, Your Honor, except 12 to make two observations. First one is that I presume that
/~T
(_) 13 somewhere in this process if we're going to start with the 14 predicate that all of these allegations which TRT was the 15 publisher of, though not the author, that somewhere we're 16 going to get a chance to try out whether or not the 17 allegations are valid or in fact fall into the Steiner 18 category, like we did with the allegation that we had i ! 19 massive amounts of mislanded terminals in 1A4. And I don't l 20 see how that fits into the process. l l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: As I understand it, the way we do i 22 that is that step one would be is the process adequate to 23 answer the allegations. Step two would then be -- assuming l ! 24 you won that one, you'd be in pretty good shape. Assuming
}
25 you lost -- because all you'd have to do then is have your l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
24589 1 CPRT program plan hold up.
2 MR. GAD: Assuming I won on that, I've advanced 3 the ball zero because I'm right back to where I am now 4 which is to say I've got the program and I've got results.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Except that you have to face the 6 issue later, which is that even if the document is all 7 correct, even if all the CPRT work is correct. He'd still 8 get a chance at some point to litigate that it doesn't 9 matter. 10 MR. GAD: My risk. My case. 11 Second point I want to make, if I may, and I 12 didn't mean to be flippant, I'll come back to that in just
) 13 a moment.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Are all we arguing about is the 15 order? Is the only question here whether we do his issue 16 first or your issues first? We're going to do it both, 17 both issues are going to come in anyway. 18 MR. GAD: We're arguing about whether we do it 19 once or twice, for openers, and we're arguing about whether 20 or not we're talking about doing when it's capable of 21 decision. And if you'll indulge me for just a couple of 22 minutes, I'll take a crack at getting this across better 23 than I have to date. 24 We have explained in our most recent memorandum a 25 number of reasons why if we start down this path in to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24590 1 hypothetical litigation, you're not going to be able to
- 1 2 decide anything because you'll be deciding it in a vacuum.
3 And your decisions vill inevitably end up being if "X" then 4 "Y", and if "Z" then double "A" and it would be completely 5 meaningless just as a decision may be that because somebody 6 comes from California and doesn't have a protocol, I'm 7 going to decide in a vacuum that he's so incredible I'm not 8 going allow him to testify. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me ask the question I asked the 10 Staff. Why is it that you were ready to litigate the 11 adequacy of the CPRT program when you knew less rather than 12 now? O) (_ 13 MR. GAD: I'll come to that in just a moment. 14 An argument was made to you earlier that perhaps 15 if you will permit me to, by responding to it, to get the 16 point across. There was an argument -- you'll find it in 17 the transcript if you do a word search on " leaves large 18 gaps," but it was to the effect that if in fact we find or 19 hypothosis OA/QC failures, then you could never use a 20 sample program to draw an inference about the population. 21 That was the argument that was advanced to you, 22 it's one of these contentions that we want to litigate in a 23 theoretical vacuum. Most unclear from the arguments that 24 was made to you was whether or not this impossibility, this 25 unacceptability, categorical unacceptability, you can't do
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24s91 1 it that way, most unclear was whether that's supposed to be O 2 a matter of fact or a matter of law. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me suggest that if they made 4 the arguments and the CPRT program was addressing that as a 5 matter of fact, then the CPRT program would probably be 6 adequate. If you're not addressing it at all, then it 7 seems to me that they've won on that part of the case. 8 MR. GAD: I have trouble with it again. The 9 argument is made you can't never use a sampling plan if you 10 find or hypothosis the OA/0C bust. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: The question that you're looking at 12 is whether or not there's a OA/0C bust. () 13 MR. GAD: Assume it. Let's assume there's a 14 OA/0C bust, this is is Dr. Jordan's question. If you l 15 assume that or find it or it's decreed from the heavans ! 16 that are raining on our heads right now, if any of those 17 circumstances, will a sample program go down the drain. 18 Now, interestingly enough, this issue has been 19 decided by the NRC, there's a case we cited it once it 20 involved Exxon Nuclear, it involved a fuel pool expansion, j 21 And as you know, when you expand the pool you've got to 22 lower the center to center distance and to deal with 23 reactivity problems, you've got to put the boral plate n V 24 inside the aluminum. 25 And the issue came up about one of the boral TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24592 1 plates is missing, we may have a problem here, because (,,)
'~# '
2 you're reactivity calculations assume that they're there. 3 And the issue was what kind of QA/QC do we have that the l 4 boral plates were not only water tight, but were really 5 there. 6 And it turned out they were QA/QC problems in 7 this case and so they went out and they did, I don't 8 remember -- I don't remember now whether they found or 9 hypothosized. And they went out and did a sample 10 inspection of the fabricated, only pieces of them were 11 fabricated, but thus to date, then to date fabricated 12 racks. Most interestingly but I suggest to you not () 13 coincidentally, it was a 95/95 sample program. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: 95/5. 15 MR. GAD: Whichever, heads or tails. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: I got it. 17 MR. CHANDLER: One argument was made that that's 18 unacceptable as a matter of law of that was rejected by the 19 appeal board. You then proceeded to litigate whether or 20 not it was acceptable as a matter of fact, and to be 21 perfectly honest with you, I can't remember what all the f 22 permutations were, but it came out being perfectly 23 acceptable. (^ 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Give me the cite of the case again. V} 25 MR. GAD: Exxon Nuclear is either in the name of ( l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
24593 1 the case -- I'll provide the cite. We cited it once (1) 2 before, Your Honor. In 95/95, it might have been, it might 3 have been in our January something or other response on 4 sample. So you come down to this proposition that we're 5 going to argue things in a vacuum and you're not going to 6 be able to decide it because you're not going to know 7 whether the SRT, whether the CPRT made an expansion, if 8 they expanded, to what stratum, how far did it go 9 horizontally, how far did it go vertically; what was the 10 adequacy. 11 I mean, you can state the proposition so that 12 it's self answering. If you find a bust and if you take ( 13 root cause and generic implications far enough and then go 14 into strata expansions, it's okay. If you don't, it's not. 15 So you're dealing with propositions that -- 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Your argument is that you could 17 litigate the CPRT plan and if you win, the case is over. 18 MR. GAD: I'm telling Your Honor that is when we 19 get all through, we will have nothing. It would have 20 foreclosed no issues. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Or all the issues. 22 MR. GAD: Heads or tails. 23 The other point that I -- the other point that I {} 24 am constrained to point out is that fifteen months ago we 25 came before Your Honors with this proposition that let's TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24594 1 flesh out the' objections to the program back before we had 2 started its implementation and before we had fifteen months 3 going down underneath the dam er over the bridge or 4 whichever, I always get them confused. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Of learning, that's another way of 6 putting it. 7 MR. GAD: We had a purpose in mind for doing 8 that, a purpose that can no longer accomplished. The Board 9 at that time took the -- said no. A;nd -- 10 JUDGE BLOCH: What was the purpose? 11 MR. GAD: Purpose was that if you found, that the 12 challenges that were to be made to the plan, all right, s-) 13 invalid, then you would stop right there and say it's a 14 good enough plan, and it's going to be implemented, 15 therefore end of case, you don't sit around and wait for 16 its implementation any more you wait around in an OL case 17 for the last bolt to be turned. 18 Your Honors said no, that what you said was that 19 the proof is in the pudding, and instead of doing this 20 twice, we want to see the results and then we'll do it. 21 And I'm paraphrasing. But it's now fifteen months later. 22 Now, if there's a Rubrick that says there's law 23 of the case, and one waffles as to how much weight you can l l 24 put on that, but certainly if fifteen months later and we (~} v 25 cannot recover those fifteen months and we've now gone out TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 24595
,_ 1 and done the' implementation, then if you go back to the V 2 standards on how you set a schedule and one of them is 3 speed and the other' is fairness, I suggest fairness that 4 that is manifestively unfair.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: fir. Gad, the alternative to not go 6 into it now is doing it fifteen months from now. It's not 7 to overlook it, it's going to be done. 8 MR. GAD: You can do it tomorrow, Your Honors. 9 On 1A4 and 2B, interestingly enough, you know, how are 10 we -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: It's going to have to be done on 12 the whole plant at some point as to whether it was () 13 adequate. 14 MR. GAD: Action plan 2B uses -- the term alludes 15 me, but it u'ses a sampling descriptive sampling technique 16 that thus far isn't used in any of the other action plans. 17 It's based on certain parametric assumptions that thus far, 18 it isn't proposed in any of the other action plans. The 19 results are out there and on the table now. There is no 20 reason why you can't proceed with that. 21 SSER 13, Your Honors, had a lot of nice things to 22 say about the program plan. But the bottom line sounded 23 very much like this Board's memorandum of fifteen months
/"N 24 ago, it said looks okay, from what we can see, but the U
25 proof is in the pudding and then we want -- and therefore TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24596 1 we wanted to see the results, an example of the one that CE) 2 somebody averted to, the HDAs. And very specifically, SSER 3 13 say -- SSER 13 said, the concept works, but until you 4 see how it has been implemented, you cannot reach a 5 judgment. 6 Well, if that's the Staff's position, then you're 7 going to set up a litigation that's going to be ending up 8 advancing us nothing and saying that we can't start our 9 litigation of the results that are available now until 10 months from now when it's all over with. 11 Point No. 4, and I go back to this proposition of 12 fairness and the way these cases are tried. As long as () 13 contention No. 5 is in this. case, I presume that the 14 Applicants have the burden of persuading this Board about 15 the present status of the plant. Now, there is language in 16 a footnote I'll find a cite for a - . 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I would. But on the other hand, it 18 could be an affirmative defense, couldn't there be in the l 19 case this burden of going forward with the person with the l 20 affirmative defense and you would still have the burden of 21 proof -- l 22 MR. GAD: I haven't even put my case in Your 23 Honor and the point I'm getting to is at least at the 24 moment, and I don't mean this exactly the way it's going to
}
l 25 come out, but it's my case. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
)
24597 1 1 It' I decide that I'm not ready to put in action (1') 2 plan -- if I pick a number I'll mess it up -- but someone l 3 that's not coming in for some point down the time, I'm not 4 ready to offer that to you and I'm not ready to offer the 5 theory of how we're going to do that yet. And maybe I want 6 to see how it's going to work out and maybe we'll change it 7 between now and when it's finished. There is nothing to 8 litigate until we come forward and say we're ready to do 9 that. 10 on the other hand, there's an allegation out 11 here, the staff published it, the allegation was that you 12 had a massive failure that resulted in mislanded terminals, O \s) 13 that allegation has been proven to be false, if anybody 14 still wants to promote that allegation, then the time to 15 litigate it is now. 16 Another allegation was that you're concrete 17 records were messed up so that they didn't tell you what 18 the strength was. We've gone out and we have investigated 19 that allegation and the concrete data, if you'll pardon the 20 pun, is that it was false. Now, we're ready to litigate 21 that right now. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Just clarify that. That the QA/QC 23 reports were accurate or that the concrete safe? 24 MR. GAD: The allegation was that the testing
}
25 records, these are -- getting late in the afternoon. The TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24598 1 records when you bust the cylinders. They're not core N U 2 samples, were falsified. Okay. And the evidence is that 3 the concrete strength is exactly on a cumulataive 4 distribution curve what those records say it is across the 5 huge number of samples. 6 So, you know, either they were falsified and the 7 guy put down the right numbers or they weren't falsified 8 and it doesn't make any difference because the concrete is 9 what the records say it is. That allegation has been 10 proved to be false. No more work going on on that 11 allegation. 12 Now, the time has come for someone to stand up r-(_)g 13 and say, "I still want" -- "I still want to press that 14 allegation." In which case we're prepared to go to trial , 15 today and prove it to than be false. or someone says okay, 16 "I'm satisfied, that wasn't a winner. I walk away from 17 it." The time to do that is right now. There is nothing 18 to be gained by saying we're going to put it on a shelf and 19 let it get stale. And I've lost track of what my last 20 point and I probably overstayed my welcome. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: You also lost track of the question 22 which is if we were to go with their way -- I guess your 23 answer was you don't want to say. If we were to go with their way of approaching the case, would you need more time {} 24 25 than the time they're suggesting? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24599 1 That is they would conclude discovery within 30 2 days, they would file all their allegations about the 3 inadequacy of -- excuse me, they would file the allegations 4 about the inadequacy of the program plan within 30 days 5 after your answers in the form of summary disposition 6 motions, and then we'd be ready to go to trial. 7 MR. GAD: The question you're asking me is 8 whether or not the ten days provided for 232.74 something 9 or other would be adequate to respond to a summary 10 disposition motion that I haven't seen yet? And -- I'm 11 gutsy, but not that gutsy. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, you just want to see what the 13 filings are? I guess that's right. 14 MR. GAD: This proposal to do theoretical I 15 suggest would be keep us all employed for a very long time 16 and will accomplish nothing but delay. ! 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Just a moment for the Board to 18 confur. 1 19 (Discussion off the record.) l 20 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing is adjourned until 8:00 21 o' clock in the morning. 22 MR. ROISMAN: I'd like -- I want to be clear 23 about one thing. As you know, there are, and this is still 24 goes to your question earlier, Dr. Jordan, there are pieces l 25 of the design of this plant which are not encompassed under TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
24600 i 1 the CPRT umbrella, at least as best as we can figure out, O 2 all the Stone & Webster work, all the Signa work, are going 3 on independent of the CPRT. 4 We understand that there may be some vague 5 connection. Mrs. Ellis has made some valiant efforts to 6 get information about the role of Stone & Webster and 7 Signa. 8 When we were talking about the design questions 9 before, we were not talking about that piece of it because 10 that piece we simply do not know enough about it to tell 11 you that we would be able to address that on the same kind 12 of schedule or that there are necessarily generic flaws. () 13 Cable tray supports, Stone & Webster, Signa, those are the 14 issues that seem to us to have been, they're in a separate 15 category. And we are treating them differently when we 16 talk about them today. Between the four corners of the, or 17 two covers of the CPRT Rev. 3 is what we're talking about. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing is adjourned. 19 (Hearing adjourned at 6:11 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2 3 this is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter 5 of: 6 7 NAME OF PROCEEDING: TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., 8 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) 9 10 11 12 DOCKET NO.: 50-445-OL & OL-2, 50-446-OL & OL-2 13 PLACE: DALLAS, TEXAS 14 DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1986 15 16 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 17 transcript thereof for the file of the United States 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 19 20 n j 21 . W Ih 22 R. Patrick Tate 23 Official Reporter {} 24 Tate Reporting Service 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I j O S'imilarly,- with respect to Docket 2, the Staff concludes that is prefe'rable to proceed directly to questions concerning the 6dequacy of CPRT plans to identify and correct as needed any significant generic or ' programatic QA/QC deficiency, rather than to continue the tortuous effort to determine in an adjudicatory framework: whether, in a particular instance, quality control personnel were as a result of intimidation discouraged from properly carrying out quality activities. whether an accumulation of such incidents' evidenced a widespread management or supervisory attitude pervasively and advers Peak, g affecting construction quality control at Comanche whether such adverse affects can be corrected on a broad scale, and O - what is the proper scope for a corrective action plan to rectity the such adverse effects. The Staff concludes that the course of action proposed by Applicants' Management Plan should be adopted. The hearing can then proceed directly to the question of whether the CPRT Program is adequate to identify and I rectify deficiencies in the areas of concern. ,, NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF CURRENT VIEWS AND PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN August 2, 1985 l l t
k O APPLICANTS' CURRENT MANAGEMENT VIEWS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESOLUTION OF ALL ISSUES June 28, 1985 Second,, t.here stay be-issuoa which spring from the Applicants' plan to verify quality by the CPRT. Y Fe M issues, related to the programmatic implications of the pending issues in the proceeding, must first be specified by
,the Intervenors. In sum, the issues should now focus the ,
proceeding upon the_adeguaqy of the CPRT to resolve previously identi_fied deficiencies, to address programmatic implications, and to thereby provide the Board with the necessary reasonable assurance as to the integrity of the t plant y
- p. 29 O :
O APPLICANTS' CURRENT MANAGEMENT VIEWS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESOLUTION OF ALL ISSggs June 28, 1985 In light of this discussion, Intervenors should submit a list r.. - alleging, vith b A and M icity, i_t.s .speciQc ' charges for further proceedings. __ , The list should assert those specific - aspects of the CPRT which Intervenors wish to challenge as being insufficient to provide the Board with adequate confidence. Specifically, Intervenors should either reframe pending issues to challenge the manner in which the CPRT program is claimed to be (} insufficient to address a specific unresolved deficiency previously in issue, or otherwise assert how that program is insufficient to address the implications of those previously identified deficiencies. 9 J
- 44 -
I O g.49 a ,,s m_4, .
O 2. That a number of issues, generic in nature, regarding the nature, scope and organization of the CPRT effort, as well as issues that arise out of a number of specific Results Reports on discrete TRT issues, need not avait the final outcome of the reinspection and corrective action program and can be heard in the interim. l' l p '11 App nemth' curet + p M 8tet Aj f '*tuti Vie CS agd Plati Fe,- htay emesti NCSo(ul-ion of f ll I3g e,gg "Y nt 2 % ; Vf TET
, - , - . ,, -.e-, _, , , , , . , , - - - -
,_.-,.,,_n.- ,.
August 18, 1986 e PROPOSED FORM OF SCHEDULING ORDER q'G Day Event 0 Trigger date. Latest of (1) publication by SRT of final Results Report, Collective Evaluation Report or Collective Significance Report (herein-after for convenience referred to simply as a "Results Report"); (2) issuance by Applicants of " Notice of Availability of Working File (s)"; or (3) filing by Applicants of responses to Board's 14 Questions. In the event that CASE determines to contest .the Action Plan, then the Results Report shall be deemed to be the Applicant's direct testimony on the issue. O Discovery opens by CASE against Applicants on Results Report. 21 CASE determines whether it wishes to contend that litigation of Results Report must await completion of one or more other identified Action Plans and, O if so, fi1es otiem to oefer citieetion. Responses due per Rules of Practice. 21 Staff determines whether it wishes to contend that litigation of Results Report must await completion of one or more other identified Action Plans, or whether Staff will be unable to file evaluation of Results Report by Day 45, and, if so, files Motion to Defer Litigation. A motion to defer based on inability to evaluate shall state the reasons for the inability to evaluate and the date by which the Staff will be prepared to evaluate. Responses due per Rules of Practice. 45 Staff files evaluation addressing Results Report. Discovery between CASE and Staff opens. Discovery by Applicants against CASE opens. 60 Last date for serving discovery request (i.e., interrogatory, request for production of documents or things, request for admission or notice of deposition). Responses due per Rules of Practice. _m
f 75 CASE files notice to one of three e3 effects: (1) it does not wish to (d contest Results Report; (2) it wishes to contest Results Report through cross-examination only; or (3) it wishes to contest Results Report and to offer direct testimony. In event of (1), then matters covered by the Results Report shall be received in evidence and shall be deemed i uncontested. In event of (2), CASE shall state the specific matters which it wishes to contest and the different conclusions that it contends the Board should reach with respect to each such matter. Discovery opens by Applicants and Staff against CASE limited to matters and contentions set forth in notice. In event of (3), CASE shall state - the specific matters which it wishes to contest and the different conclusions that it contends the Board should reach g with respect to each such matter, and V CASE files its proposed direct testimony with respect to Results Report. Discovery opens by Applicants and Staff against CASE limited to matters and contentions set forth in notice and matters contained in proposed direct testimony. 85 Last date for serving discovery request under foregoing (i.e., interrogatory, request for production of documents or things, request for admission or notice of deposition). Responses due per Rules of Practice. 105 Rebuttal testimony, if any, filed by Applicants and Staff. Board establishes time and place for evidentiary hearing at earliest practicable time. The following points govern the foregoing provisions O -- e
- v. _ , , _ _ - . , _ _
_. .-,,m - _ _ - ~ - - - . - - , - _ _ _ _ _ -
~% regarding scheduling:
(d
- 1. Computation cf Dates. In any case in which the date indicated by the foregoing is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the date shall be the next business day thereafter and each succeeding date shall be advanced by ene, two or three days, as required, so that the intervals established by the foregoing schedule are preserved.
, 2. Service: Discoverv. Parties may serve discovery requests by whichever of the means authorized by the Rules of Practice they choose. However, to avoid ambiguity, each party may designate one attorney or other representative to be its lead representative for all or any sub-set of action plans, and the time within which a response to that discovery request is due shall be measured from the date and manner of service upon that designated representative. See 10 C.F.R. section 2.710. A party may change its Jesignation from time to time in its discretion.
- 3. Service: Other Papers. Each party shall designate one attorney or other representative to be its lead representative for all or any sub-set of action plans, and service of any other pleading, notice or response called for by this Order shall be made to as to be g received by the designated representative on the indicated
-( date. A party may change its designation from time to time in its discretion.
- 4. Production of Documents. The foregoing order
; does not constrain the time within which documents for i which the production has been requested may actually be inspected, provided however that the custodian of any dccument may decline to produce the document for actual inspection during the ten-day period within which that party is required or permitted to file testimony. Each l request for the production of documents shall designate a specific place and time at which the production of documents is requested. Each response to a request for documents shall either (1) expressly accede to the time and place set forth in the request or (2) designate specifically a different time, place or both. In the event
! of (2), then in the absence of a different agreement l between the parties the time set forth in the response r shall govern unless, acting upon a motion filed within five days after the service of the response, the Board shall l otherwise order. l-1 O l . i l I _ _ _ _ ._.._ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ - - _ - - - . _ _ - - .. - -
4 i f') 5. Modifications to Schedule. It is the intent of N' the Board that the foregoing schedule shall be self-executing without requiring repeated Board oversight. It is also the intent of the Board that sufficient flexibility be retained to deal with any contingencies not presently foreseen. To that end, any party may, for specific cause shown, seeks modifications to the foregoing schedule or enlargements of time for any act called for therein. Parties seeking modification or enlargement shall first solicit the assent of the other parties. In the event of an assented-to modification or enlargement, the party seeking the modification or enlargement shall, promptly upon obtaining the other party's assent, notify the Board of the terms of the modification or enlargement, in which case the mcdification or enlargement shall be effective without further order of the Board. In the absence of assent, the party seeking the modification or 4 enlargement shall promptly, and in any event not later than five days prior to the scheduled event, file and serve a motion for relief, provided, however, that no such motion shall be filed unless the assent of the other party has first been scught, and provided further that in the response to any such motion, the objecting party shall state with specificity the reasons why assent was withheld. l
~^~
O l l
t
/ o g UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\ . . . . . ,o August 15, 1986 i
l l i Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dean, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Architecture and Technology Washington, DC 20555 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 I Elizabeth B. Johnson l Administrative Judge Dr. Walter H. Jordan Oak Ridge National Laboratory Administrative Judge P. O. Box, Building 3500 881 W. Outer Drive i Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of I O Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, UiiTtri and 2) Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
Dear Administrative Judges:
i On Thursday, August 14, 1986, Chairman Bloch requested Staff counsel to determine what photocopying charges were assessed to users of the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), and whether that photocopying was done by a private contractor. In addition, Chairman Bloch also asked if Staff counsel could provide information on the copying charges assessed by other applicants against intervenors in other NRC licensing proceedings. In response to the Chairman's request , Staff counsel provides the following information. The PDR on H Street offers users two choices for photocopying of docu-ments. For copying of large numbers of documents or where there is no immediate need for the copies , the PDR has contracted with Facilities Management Incorporated (FMI) to provide copying services at 5 cents a page. This cost is for standard-sized originals and copies; additional charges apply for copying of oversized documents, aperture cards (a form of microform record), or enlarged / reduced copies. Alternatively, if the user requires the copies faster than the turnaround times specified in the NRC contract with FMI, users can make their own copies on coin-operated O machines located in the reading room of the PDR. coin-operated machine copies is 10 cents per page. The cost for
Staff counsel also polled other Staff counsel for their recollection of the fees charged by applicants in other NRC proceedings for copying of documents requested by intervenors pursuant to discovery. None of the polled Staff counsel was able to recall whether or not such fees were imposed or the amount of such charges, for cases within the last 5 years. In closing, the Staff wishes to make clear that this information is being provided in response to the Board's inquiry, and that the Staff takes no position on the ongoing discovery dispute between Applicants and Inter-venor CASE. Sincere G ary S. zuno (W Coun r NRC Staff cc: Service List i O 1 O l
. _ - _ . _ _ . .}}