ST-HL-AE-3329, Final Rept for South Texas Project City of Austin Vs Houston Light & Power Litigation Record Review Program (Phase III)

Final Rept for South Texas Project City of Austin Vs Houston Light & Power Litigation Record Review Program (Phase III)

ML20005E193
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/30/1989
From:	S. LEVY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20005E190	List: ML20005E189 ST-HL-AE-3329, Final Rept for South Texas Project City of Austin Vs Houston Light & Power Litigation Record Review Program (Phase III)
References
ST-HL-AE-3329, NUDOCS 9001040046
Download: ML20005E193 (97)

Text

,, __

~,...

- I ' f

1 b.

x;; } >

',s 1.- _

.,-r--.3_,.',,

~

r u.

s lJ <,. _,

h Y_1

^

'I

)

. gy h a ; i r,4. ?js F

i

+

i,3 1

- +

g m;p; s r'

• ST-HL.-AE-3329 m

- e i

n,.

p?-

p-',x-

?,y-

-s, h]b 1

1

4 it t '

4 p

[d

~

s. t.

Kd

~

g' sc-6

'E.e c,

1

~x

t t 2 ;.J '

F

'1

. ~ r V

-,k-6

(

4

,g i

lL n:g fts

.(,

L F4 i 3

.p I(.p 3

is

,.m.

i I

1 l :.

F ', i '

ATTACHMENT.'1

. S, LEVY,'INC; " FINAL REPORT.FOR.THE SOUTH TEXAS

~

PROJECT LITIGATION M v HIAP. RECORD l

REVIEW PROGRAM FHASE III-u.

m-

p

\\ q t

(.' V 5

.. i i

'l 1

M4 he

<.4 f' -.

i t.

l l.

b' ) 3.

',j 4.

o l.- '

s 1

>H l;. ;,

4 i,P A1/045.NL8 8

9001040046 891227 PDR. ADOCK 05000498 P:

PDC 4

w. u.. ;,...

-)

e i

l L

l-FINAL REPORT FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT C0A v. HL&P LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM (PHASEIll)

J l.

i I

r l

Prepared for:

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY j

)

l I

November 1989 I

L f.

f 3425 S. Bascom Avenue

5. LtVV, INCOAPORATfD campden, cA 95008

1 i

Y

~1 J'

FINAL REPORT FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT C0A v. HL&P j

LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM J.

(PHASE!!!)

1 l

)

I Prepared for:

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY j

)

l 1

November 1989

)

\\

1 y

i

)

I i

EXECt1TIVE

SUMMARY

)

This report of Phase III of the City of Austin v. Houston Lichtino &

Egnt (COA v. HLLP) Litigation Record Review Program documents the results i

)-

and conclusions reached following a systematic review of the pretrial record not previously examined and the record of the trial in the litigation between the City of Austin and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) and its parent Houston Industries, Inc. The trial ended on July 5,

)

1989, with a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

The review of the portion of the pretrial record created prior to July 25, 1988 (Phase I) was previously documented in a report dated November 1988.

The review of the portion of the pretrial record created between July 25, 1988 and January 16, 1989 (Phase II) was previously documented in a report dated March 1989.

This Phase III program completes the Litigation Review.

The object of the Review Program was twofold:

1) to examine the d

litigation record to determine whether it discloses any previously unidentified safety-related deficiency in the systems, structures, or components (SSC)oftheSouthTexasProject(STP)ortheirassociated design or quality documents; and 2) to document the review process and its

)

results in a retrievable form. To do this, record documents containing factual information relating to technical aspects of the design and L

construction--that is, trial transcripts, deposition transcripts, and documents designated by the parties before the trial as potential trial p

exhibits or as exhibits during the trial--were reviewed.1 l

l l

Each phase of the review was performed in two stages.

First, Houston l

Lighting & Power Company employed a screening process to determine which h

depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions, affidavits and exhibits attached to motions for summary judgment or designated as trial 1 A small number of documents containing proprietary information was D

withheld from the review described in this report and examined separately by HL&P. See Section 3.B for explanation.

S-1 P

O-i exhibits might contain information about technical aspects of South Texas o'

Project design or construction.

Those documents, totaling approximately l

4500 pages, were then transmitted to S. Levy Incorporated for detailed review.

i o.

The second stage of the review process consisted of a detailed, line-by line review by S. Levy Incorporated of all documents identified during the screening process.

In addition, transcripts of the trial, totaling approximately 15,000 pages, were reviewed by an S. Levy Reviewer working at O

the STP site.2 S. Levy Incorporated recorded each assertion in these documents which described a deficiency in South Texas Project systems, structures, or components; classes of systems, structures, or components; processes relating to specific systems, structures, or components; overall o

South Texas Project site data; or related design or quality documents. A total of 460 assertions was identified in Phase III. These assertions were then analyzed to determine whether they:

1) had already been identified and dispositioned in either the HL&P v. B&R Litigation Record Review lo Program or Phases I or II of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program; 2) were not safety related (and would not adversely affect the operation of safety-related systems, structures, or components); 3) had already been identifi,d by the South Texas Project; or 4) were factually O.

erroneous. The work of identifying and analyzing assertions was performed I

by engineers experienced in the nuclear power industry, including a number who were specifically knowledgeable about design and construction of the South Texas Project.

O The 460 assertions were disposed of as follows:

1)thesubstanceof 285 was determined to have already been identified and dispositioned in the HL&P v. B&R Litigation Record Review Program or Phases I or II of the @3 0

v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program; 2) 5 were determined not to be safety-related; 3) the substance of 168 was shown to have already been 2

As explained in Section 3.B certain transcripts (or portions thereof) containing proprietary information were reviewed by HL&P engineers rather O

than SLI.

S-2 O

l

)

)

identified by the South Texas Project; and 4) 2 were detemined to be

)

factually erroneous.

Phase !!! of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program disclosed no safety related deficiencies which had not already been

)

identified for resolution by the South Texas Project. Had such a deficiency been found. HL&P would have been fomally notified and HL&P

)

would have dispositioned the assertion under its procedures.

The absence of previously unidentified safety related deficiencies was not surprising in light of the history of comprehensive reviews of the South Texas Project design and construction.

t

)

The conduct'of the Litigation Record Review Program was controlled by plans and procedures. A Senior Advisory Panel reviewed the plans for Phase III and the results of Phase III. The program was also monitored by S.

)

Levy Incorporated's Corporate Quality Assurance staff.

Finally, two Quality Control audits were conducted by Houston Lighting & Power Company's Nuclear Assurance personnel. The comprehensive scrutiny of the Litigation Record Review Program by these groups has assured that Phase III was performed according to its procedures and that its results are accurate.

In summary, Phase III of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program was a detailed, systematic examination of transcripts of the trial and those other portions of the litigation record which were likely to contain assertions of deficiencies in systems, structures, or components l

and their associated design or quality documents. The review did not i

disclose any previously unrecognized safety-related deficiencies in the h

South Texas Project's systems, structures, or components.

The results of l

the review demonstrate that any safety related deficiencies that were asserted in the litigation record for Phase III have already been l-identified by the South Texas Project, including Bechtel Power Corporation, j

Ebasco Services Incorporated, or Houston Lighting & Power Company.

This demonstration underscores the success of the earlier intensive reviews performed on the South Texas Project.

)-

S3

O l

Finally, Phase !!! is the concluding phase of the COA v. HL&P j

g Litigation Record Review Program. Transcripts of the trial and documents j

used during the litigation which might contain factual information relating

+

to technical aspects of the design and construction of the STP have been i

reviewed, Every assertion of deficiency found during the review process O_

has been shown to have been known by the South Texas Project. The litigation record of COA v. HL&P has therefore not found any previously unidentified safety related deficiencies.3 O

t lO 1

i

'O O

lO l

iO 3 As indicated in Section 3.B. a small part of the litigation record (containing proprietary information of an HL&P contractor) was reviewed by

.O HL&P; the results of that review are being reported separately.

S-4

,0

h

).-

i l

TABLE OF CONTENTS y

Seetion Iltle Eigg 1.

INTRODUCTION 11

)

A.

HISTORY OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT l2 i

B. -

THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

1-2 C.

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S UNDERTAKING TO REVIEW

);-

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE LITIGATION RECORD l3 r

2.

PURPOSE OF THE LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM 2-1

)

3.

THE SCOPE OF THE COA v. HL&P LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM 31 A.

OVERVIEW 3-1 B.

SCOPE OF PHASE III 0F THE LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM 31 4.

METHODOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE LITIGATION RECORD L

REVIEW PROGRAM 4-1 A.

THE SCREENING PROCESS 4-2 Q

l.

The Purpose of Screening 4-2 l

2.

Criteria and Methodology of the Screening Process 4-2 3.

Checking the Results of the Screening Process 43 B.

DETAILED REVIEW OF TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TRIAL AND SELECTED L

LITIGATION DOCUMENTS 4-3 1.

Introduction 4-3 2.

The Litigation Review Team 4-4 a.

Technical Participants in the Detailed Review 4-5 b.

Training of Technical Participants for the Review 4-6 c.

Computations and Records Centers 47 1

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

),

Seetion lilh USA 4.

METHODOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM (CONTINUED) i B.

DETAILED REVIEW 0F TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TRIAL AND SELECTED L

LITIGATION DOCUMENTS (CONTINUED) 3.

Steps in the Detailed Review Process 48

)

a.

Line-by-Line Review of Record Documents Identified During the Screening Process 48 b.

Disposition of Assertions of Deficiency 49 c.

Second Level Reviews by Overview Specialists 4 12 d.

Administrative Control of S. Levy Incorporated Review Process 4 13 4.

Completion of the Work and Issuance of the Report 4 14 A OUTLINE OF LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROCESS 4 A-1

' -B CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE SELECTION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FOR REVIEW 4B1 D -C CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FOR REVIEW 4-C-1 -D CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS FOR REVIEW 4D1 -E CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ASSERTIONS l

OF DEFICIENCY 4-E-1

! -F CRITERIA FOR SAFETY DETERMINATION 4-F-1 -G CRITERIA FOR DEMONSTRATING STP IDENTIFICATION 4-G-1 -H CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION ON FACTUAL BASIS 4H1 -1 CRITERIA FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SYSTEMS INTERACTION DETERMINATION 4-I-l

) -J LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW FLOWCHART 4Jl 3:

O i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

O Seetion lit.),g Eg2A 5.

QUALITY ASSURANCE 5-1 O

A.

INTRODUCTION 5-1 8.

S. LEVY INCORPORATED QUALITY ASSURANCE 5-1 C.

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE 53 0

6.

OVERSIGHT BY THE SENIOR ADVISORY PANEL 61 7.

RESULTS OF THE LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW 7-1 O

A.

RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PROCESS 7-1 1.

Trial Transcripts 7-1 2.

Depositions 7-1 0

3.

Exhibits Designated for Trial 7-2 4.

Interrogatories (IncludingRequestsforAdmissions) 72 5.

Exhibits Attached to Motions for Summary Judgment 7-2 l0 B.

RESULTS nF S. LEVY INCORPORATED DETAILED REVIEW 7-4 1.

Identification of Assertions of Deficiency 7-4 i

2.

Disposition of Assertions 7-7

'O 8.

CONCLUSION 8-1 l

l APPENDIX A (List of litigation record documents reviewed)

A-i O

APPENDIX B (List of S. Levy Incorporated Technical Participants in the Litigation Record Review Program)

B-1 APPENDIX C (List of documents to be referenced on i

Disposition Foms)

C1

-;o l

O-lii

0:

SECTIM 1 3

INTRODUCTIM Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), as the co applicant 3

responsible for the licensing of the South Texas Project (STP), has undertaken a review of the $11y of Austin v. Houston Lichtino & Power (C0A v. HL&P) litigation record as reflected in the discovery materials filed with the Court and in the transcripts of the trial.4 The goal of 3

the Litigation Record Review Program is to determine whether the record in the COA v. HL&P litigation discloses some safety related deficiency l

in the design or construction of STP systems, structures, or components (SSC) or in their associated design or in quality documentation which

9 was not previously identified.

Phase I of this review, encompassing the pretrial litigation record filed with the Court prior to July 25, 1988, has been completed and documented in a report dated November 1988. The documents reviewed during Phase II, which encompassed additional p

discovery material filed with the Court prior to January 16, 1989, were documented in a report dated March 1989. This report documents Phase III of this review which encompasses discovery material and trial exhibits filed with the Court which had not already been reviewed in lo Phases I or II as well as transcripts of the trial which ended with the verdict on July 5, 1989.

l-lO Each phase of the review was conducted in two stages.

First, a j

screening process was employed by HL&P to identify those litigation f

record documents that might contain technical information concerning STP l

SSC.

In addition, transcripts of the trial were selected for review l

without screening. Next, any such documents were then reviewed in 10 detail by experienced engineers employed by S. Levy Incorporated (SLI),

4 As explained in Section 3.B, part of the litigation record containing proprietary information was excluded from the review conducted by S.

x Levy Incorporated. HL&P reviewed those materials and is reporting the y

results of its review separately.

1-1 O

.. _ _ _ ~_-

)l l

who identified any assertions of deficiency in these documents with 3

respect to STP $$C pursuant to detailed procedures and criteria. The SLI review process was conducted under the surveillance of SLI and HL&P

)

personnel and was conducted in accordance with the SLI Quality Assurance j

(QA) program and monitored by HL&P in accordance with its QA program.

)

Completion of this program to review the litigation record for C.QA

v. ML&P (Phases I, !!, and III) has required about five man years of engineering effort.

It has resulted in a completely auditable record, 3

consisting of hard copy files, a computerized database, reports dated November 1988 (Phase I), March 1989 (Phase II), and this report on Phase III. The Phase III review of the COA v. HL&P litigation record f

encompassed transcripts of the trial and materials filed with the Court which had not previously been screened, reviewed, and documented under Phases I and II.

A.

HISTORY OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT D

l For a discussion of the histcry of the South Texas Project which includes project background information, history of previous reviews of STP engineering and construction, and a discussion of the HL&P v. B&R O

litigation record review, see the report produced for Phase I entitled

' Report for the South Texas Project C0A v. HL&P Litigation Record Review l

Program (Phase I)" dated November 1988.

l

D l

B.

THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND HOUSTON LIGHTING &

l-POWER COMPANY. ET AL.

j For a discussion of the COA v. HL&P litigation which includes a brief history of the case, the litigation issues, and the types of L

materials produced by discovery, see the report produced for Phase I entitled ' Report for the South Texas Project COA v. HL&P Litigation g

Record Review Program (Phase I)" dated November 1988.

1-2 Q

_ _ _ _ _ _,. _ - - -, -, _ ~.. - -.. _

O i

C.

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY'S UNDERTAKING TO REVIEW RELEVANT Q-PARTS OF THE LITIGATION RECORD In 1988, it was determined that the record of the C0A v. HL&P litigation should be examined to determine whether it contained O

information regarding any safety related deficiencies in the STP design or construction which had not previously been identified, and NL&P undertook a systematic review for this purpose.

O A review program was proposed in a letter dated April 18, 1988, to the NRC Staff, and the written program document was submitted to the NRC by letter dated September 30, 1988. The review began July 1988 and has required approximately 11,000 man-hours of engineering effort by S.. Levy 8

'O Incorporated to complete all three Phases. The results of Phase I of

~

this review were documented in a report dated November 1988. The results of Phase II of the review were documented in a report dated March 1989. This current report on Phase !!! documents the review of O

the remainder of the litigation record including the trial.5

.0-O l

P l

5 As noted in Section 3.8, part of the litigation record containing proprietary information was excluded from the review conducted by SLI.

HL&P reviewed those materials and is reporting the results of its review 0

separately.

1-3

,0 L

y SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF 1HE LITISATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM L

The purpose of the COA v. HL&P STP Litigation Record Review Program was to determine whether the litigation record disclosed any previously unidentified safety related deficiencies in STP systems, structures, or components or their associated design or quality documents. This review was not intended to duplicate previous extensive reviews of STP design and construction performed by HL&P, Bechtel, Ebasco, and other contractors, but to determine whether there was any new information embodied in documents generated for the litigation that revealed some safety-related deficiency which had not already been resolved or identified for resolution by the Project. The COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program was designed to

)

produce a complete and retrievable record of its performance and results.

)

k

)

J 2-1 3

I l

1 SECTION 3

)

THE SCOPE OF THE C0A v. ML&P LIT!6ATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM 1

A.

DVERVIEW

)

A substantial record was generated during the C0A v. HL&P litigation, L

portions of which are concerned with the technical adequacy of STP SSC. To 5-assure that the materials prepared for the litigation do not disclose any safety-related deficiencies which have not already been identified by the South Texas Project including HL&P, Bechtel, or Ebasco, HL&P has reviewed such materials using a review process similar to that used in the review of

)

the HL&P v. B&R litigation record. The litigation record and the review process are generally described below.

B.

SCOPE OF PHASE III 0F THE LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM

)

The types of documents which are found in the litigation record e

I generated in COA v. HL&P are described in Section 3.B of the " Report for the South Texas Project COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program (Phase I)" dated November 1988. One category (Affidavits and Exhibits) expanded during Phase II as follows. As of thc " cutoff" date for Phase I (July 25, 1988), only the plaintiff had designated trial exhibits.

Subsequently, trial exhibits were designated by the defendant as well and these are also included in the category Affidavits and Exhibits. Another category (Court j

Transcripts) has been expanded.

Jury voir dire and the transcripts of l

proceedings began March 7, 1989, and ended with a verdict July S, 1989.

l Trial transcripts are now included in the category Court Transcripts.

)

During the period between January 17, 1989, and July 5, 1989 (the

" cutoff" date for Phase III), some additional documents of the types described in Section 3.B of the Phase ! Report were prepared Or designated 3-1 L

0-by the parties. Additionally, in some cases legible copies of previously O

prepared or designated documents first became available during this period, t

1 As in Phases I and II, HL&P identified those documents most likely to i

contain information or insights, if any, with respect to potential O

deficiencies in the STP $$C using the screening process described in Section 4.A.

Those documents were selected from the categories of documents that were generated for purposes of litigation and were in the custody of the Court. The transcripts of the trial which were given to SLI O

for review were not screened.

Documents generated for purposes of this review and all transcripts O

f the trial have been examined; however, review results from certain Westinghouse documents and from testimony containing Westinghouse proprietary information are not in this report.

Westinghouse, vendor of the nuclear steam supply systems at the South Texas Project, advised HL&P O.

that a number of documents which had been designated as potential trial exhibits and/or were actually introduced as exhibits in the trial contained Westinghouse proprietary information. At the request of Westinghouse, HL&P withheld these documents from this Litigation Record Review in which the O

documents were screened by lawyers from the firm, Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., and reviewed by employees of S. Levy Incorporated. Newman &

Holtzinger is counsel for the plaintiff utilities in a suit against Westinghouse involving another nuclear generating station and S. Levy O

Inc rporated is an expert consultant to the plaintiffs in that suit. The documents containing Westinghouse proprietary information were screened by HL&P engineers and lawyers from the firms representing HL&P in COA v. HL&P and reviewed by HL&P engineers. During examination of certain witnesses O

and introduction of certain exhibits in the trial, the proprietary information was discussed. The Courtroom was closed to the public at such times and pertinent transcript pages were marked as confidential. Those pages were not included in the transcripts reviewed by S. Levy O

Incorporated; they were reviewed by HL&P engineers. Results of the review 32 O

b of the proprietary documents and confidential transcripts will be reported y

separately by HL&P.

l 1

N i

1 5

f k

i l

i y

33

)

O SECTION 4 O

NETH000 LOGY Ale PERFORMANCE OF THE LIT!aATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM i

O In Phase III, as in earlier phases, the litigation record was e

reviewed in two stages. First, the interrogatories, requests for admissions, deposition transcripts, and affidavits and exhibits designated for trial or filed with motions for summary judgment were screened to O

identify those likely to contain technical information or the STP design, construction, or QA/QC. The transcripts of the trial were not screened but were reviewed in their entirety 6 Second, those documents not eliminated during screening were reviewed line by line to identify any assertions.of 10 deficiencies in STP systems, structures, or components or their associated design or quality documents.

Each statement determined to be an assertion j

was further examined to determine:

O 1) if the assertion had been previously identified in the review of the litigation records of HL&P v. B&R or Phase I or II of COA v. HL&P; or 2) whether the assertion is not safety related -- that is, whether O

the asserted deficiency involves a safety related SSC; or l

3) if the assertion is determined to be safety-related, whether the Project has already resolved the matter covered by the O.

assertion or identified it for resolution; or 1

4) whether the assertion is factually erroneous.

l iO If the assertion was determined to be safety-related but had not been resolved or identified for resolution by the South Texas Project and could 6 See Section 3.B for explanation regarding certain exclusions of materials from review by S. Levy Incorporated.

,0 4-1 O

)

not be shown to be factually erroneous, litigation review Procedures j

)

required preparation of an STP Deficiency Evaluation Forn (DEF) covering the substance of the assertion and transmittal of the DEF to HL&P's STP i

Project Engineering for evaluation in accordance with the applicable STP Procedures pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 50.72.

(A flowchart

)-

showing an outline of the litigation record review process appears in

' -A.)

r A.

THE SCREENING PROCESS

)

1.

The Purpose of Screenina t

As explained in Section 4.A of the ' Report for the South Texas Project COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program (Phase I)" dated November 1988, documents filed in the litigation were screened to ensure that those which might contain information related to technical aspects of the design or construction of STP SSC would receive detailed, line by-line review.

)

The trial transcripts were not subjected to any screening process but were automatically included for detailed review.

2.

Criteria and Methodoloav of the Screenina Process The Phase III screening was performed by engineers / specialists and attorneys working in two person teams, each consisting of an attorney and an engineer familiar with the design of STP and with issues in the l

litigation.

Using written criteria, the screening teams examined documents l

filed in the litigation to determine which would be included for detailed p

review by SLI.

For each document which a screening team determined did not I

require review, a short statement was prepared explaining why the document i

should not be reviewed. The sheet upon which this statement appeared was signed by both members of the screening team. When there was any

)

reasonable doubt as to whether a document should be included for detailed l

l 4-2

)

l

0-review, it remained on the list of documents to be reviewed. The criteria O

used in Phase !!! for identification of documents for detailed review are the same as were used in Phases I and II.

They are set out in Attachments 4 B (interrogatories and requests for admissions), 4 C (depositions), and 4 D (affidavits and exhibits).

O 3.

Checkina the Results of the Screenino Process An attorney / engineer team other than the team which performed the O

initial screening was used to check the results of that screening. Using the same screening criteria, these checking teams reexamined each instance in which a document which was screened had been excluded from detailed review to ensure that no documents had been incorrectly excluded.

O Previously excluded documents which the checking team determined should be included for detailed review were included with the results of the checking process documented on a new sheet, which replaced the original screening sheet.

Checking team members signed all screening process results O

examined.

Although this checking resulted in minor changes in the list of items included for detailed review, it essentially confirmed the results of the O

initial screening. The documents recording the results of the initial screening and checking were crganized into files and are stored at HL&P's offices in Houston, Texas.

The list of documents identified during the screening pr cess f r review by SLI is presented in Appendix A.

O B.

DETAILED REVIEW OF TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TRIAL AND SELECTED LITIGATION DOCUMENTS O

1.

Introduction l.

Those parts of the litigation record selected for detailed review by

)

the screening process described above were reviewed in their entirety to lO determine whether they contain information about any previously 4-3 lO l

,wu-y-,

---.m,

-+,-

.)

)

unidentified safety related deficiencies in the design or construction of

)

an STP SSC. A ' deficiency" for the purposes of this review is a defect that will or may impair the ability of an SSC to perfom its intended function. Deficiencies may exist in the SSC itself or in its associated design documents (e.g., design drawings, calculations, or specifications)

)

or in documents establishing the quality of the SSC (e.g., QA/QC documentation).

The planning for Phase III of the detailed review was done during February 1989. To assure timely review of testimony given at the trial and dispositioning cf assertions, an SLI engineer was located at the STP site during the time of the trial.

This engineer received the trial transcripts

)

on a daily basis and reviewed them for assertions imediately.7 All assertions of deficiency found in the transcripts were dispositioned within 14 days of the date on which the transcript was taken.

The review and dispositioning of other litigation record documents was performed at SLI as had been done during Phases I and !!.

)

2.

The Litiaation Review Team The detailed review of the litigation record was conducted by a team

)

which included a Team Leader, Reviewers, Discipline Specialists, and Overview Specialists. Approximately five engineers participated in the work.

SLI also employed a staff of administrative and clerical personnel to provide non-technical support for the technical participants in the review.

)

7 Those pages of the transcripts which were marked Confidential were not reviewed as sart of the S. Levy effort; they were reviewed by HL&P and the results of 11at review are being reported separately.

44

'O l

a.

Technical Particinants in the Detailed Review O

The Litigation Review Team consisted of employees of S. Levy incorporated.

Individuals who had participated in the preparation of SLl's

' Report on Brown & Root Engineering on the South Texas Project" and of

'O technical interrogatory answers during the HL&P v. BAR litigation were utilized to the maximum extent practical, thereby providing a cadre of individuals already familiar with the design and construction of STP and associated technical issues.

In addition, most of the Litigation Review

[

.O Team had participated in the review of the HL&P v. B&R litigation record conducted in late 1985 and early 1986 and Phases I and 11 of the COA v.

tillf litigation record conducted in late 1988 and early 1989.

O Reviewers reviewed the litigation record documents included for 3

review during the screening process to identify and record any assertions of deficiency appearing in those documents. Reviewers were engineers with at least three years of engineering experience in their respective

'O disciplines.

The Discipline Specialists examined the statements recorded by Reviewers to determine whether these statements failed to meet the criteria O

for identification of assertions of deficiency, were not safety-related, had already been identified in Project documentation, or were factually erroneous.

Discipline Specialists were engineers with at least seven years of experience working in their respective disciplines on nuclear power plant engineering, design, or construction.

The Overview Specialists examined each instance in which a Discipline O

Specialist had determined that a statement did not meet the criteria for identification of an assertion.

The Overview Speciali,ts also examined each instance in which a Discipline Specialist had determined that an assertion was not safety related to ensure that this determination was O

correct in light of any possible systems interaction or interdisciplinary 45

. 0

n e

, effects. Overview Specialists, along with Discipline Specialists, provided

>L independent verification of the disposition of all assertions. Overview Specialists had at least 10 years of experience doing multi-disciplinary engineering work or overseeing engineering work in different disciplines on j

nuclear power plants.

}..

L The Team Leader was responsible for overall management of the 4

Litigation Record Review Program. The Team Leader (and those he designated to perform tasks assigned to the Team Leader) had a minima of 10 years of.

technical management experience related to nuclear plant engineering, design, or construction.

$l The actual qualifications of the technical participants in the review process considerably exceeded the minimum qualifications stipulated. The names and levels of experience of technical participants in the Litigation Record Review I'rogram are listed in Appendix B.

Depending on their qualifications, some individuals performed more than one review function.

(For..xample, some individuals qualified to the level of Overview l

Specialists acted as Reviewers, Discipline Specialists, and Overview Specialists.)

HL&P engineers in Houston and at STP aided in obtaining necessary

'information and documents from the Project.

l b.

Trainina of Technical Participants for the Review i

Before undertaking any detailed review work, each member of the Litigation Review Team attended formal orientation and training sessions.

[

The first formal training session was held on July 27, 1988, in preparation for Phase I, and a second, primarily a " refresher

• for Phase II, was held on December 19, 1988. A third training session for Phase III was held on February 27, 1989. The first session opened with orientation m mentations I

by HL&P's Manager, Engineering & Licensing, Unit 2, and by HL&P's legal 4-6 y

5.

O..

counsel. The orientation presentation also included the meaning and intent O-of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and how it is implemented by HL&P.

In all subsequent training sessions for new participants these presentations were reproduced from video tapes. The bulk of each session was devoted to detailed presentation and discussion of the Project Plan and-Procedures, with

'O' emphasis on the criteria to be used. These documents and any subsequent revisions were issued to each participant. The Plan contains requirements for administrative action by SLI such as schedule and distribution lists.

' The Procedures contain the technical requirements of the review. The SLI O

Corporate Quality Assurance Manager presented SLI's methodology for implementing 10 CFR 50.55(e), 10 CFR 50.72, and 10 CFR Part 21 and the obligations of each participant under these regulations.

O In addition to the technical participants, all of the Quality Assurance personnel-for SLI and HL&P assigned to the Litigation Record l

Review Program participated in a training session, and many of the support personnel from the SLI Computations and Records Center participated for the O.

purpose of general orientation.'

In addition to the orientation and training session, each technical member of the Litigation Review Team received a training manual containing O

controlled copies of the Project Plan and Procedures. These were kept up-to-date by inserting current revisions to the Project Plan and Procedures as they were issued. Technical members of the Litigation Review Team O

referred to their. training manuals for guidance during the course of their review work.

1 c.

Computations and Records Centers To support the technical staff, SLI established a Computations Center and a Records Center. The Computations Center utilized SLI's database system of hardware and software that permitted the information prepared by Litigation Review Team members to be recorded and stored in a controlled, uniform, and accessible fashion. The Re:ords Center is the repository for 4-7 O

Oi' i

k hard copies of documents used in the review, including copies of litigation O

record documents reviewed, Project documents used in the. review, and the various-foms and other documents prepared during the review by the Litigation Review Team.

'Of 3.

stens in the Detailed Review Precess The Litigation Review Procedures governing the work of Reviewers, Discipline Specialists, and Overview Specialists are schematically O

represented in the flowchart appearing in Attachment 4-J.

a.

Line-by-Line Review of Record Documents Identified Durino the Screenino Process O-A complete list of all documents to be reviewed was prepared based on the results of the screening.

(See Appendix A.) The Team Leader assigned specific materials from this list to~ individual Reviewers who began their Or review of record documents on March 7, 1989.

If the Reviewer determined that the assigned document or portions of the document had previously been reviewed in the litigation record review-O -

of HL&P v. B&R or Phases I or II of COA v. HL&P, he was instructed to document that fact.

g To help assure a thorough and focused review of every line of every document, each Reviewer made notations in the margin as to the subject matter of the material he was reading and the location of any assertion appearing in it.

For each assertion of deficiency in the design or O.

c nstruction of an STP SSC (or associated design or QA/QC documentation) contained in the review material, the Reviewer completed an Assertion Form, including the exact location of the assertion of deficiency in the reviewed document and a description of the assertion. The Reviewer also assigned O

the assertion one or more category designators denoting the technical area 4-8 O

0-to which the assertion pertained (e.g., Mechanical, Electrical,

.O-Structural).

The criteria used by the Reviewers to identify assertions of I

deficiency are provided in Attachment 4-E.

Reviewers were instructed to assume that statements made in litigation record documents were true and accurate, and to record as assertions even those statements which appeared O

to fall only marginally within the established criteria. All assertions of deficiency were recorded regardless of whether or not they appeared to be safety-related. The Reviewer was also instructed to record the location of every substantive reference to NRC competence or performance on an NRC O

Citings form.

After completing his review of a particular litigation record O-document, the Reviewer entered the Assertion Forms and NRC Citings Forms for that document into the computerized database. SLI Computations subsequently supplied the Reviewer with computer printouts of each form.

The Reviewer checked these printouts for accuracy and signed them. The O

signed printouts constitute the official Assertion Forms. These signed Assertion Forms were filed in the Records Center. Any subsequent changes to the Assertion Form were made by formal revision. All versions are retained in the Records Center.

Listings of substantive references to the q'

NRC in record documents have been provided to HL&P for transmittal to the NRC.

Review of litigation record documents for identification of O

assertions of deficiency was completed in September 1989.

b.

Disposition of Assertions of Deficiency O

The completed Assertion Forms prepared by the Reviewers were collected and assigned to Discipline Specialists. Similar assertions recorded from different litigation record documents were grouped so that they could be examined by the same Discipline Specialist.

O 9

4-9

[

}

t The Discipline Specialists examined the' Assertion Forms assigned to y

them to determine whether they could be disposed of in the following ways:

1)

The Discipline Specialists could determine that the assertions I

had.been previously identified in the review of the litigation I

record of HL&P v. B&R or Phases I or II of C0A v. HL&P. An independent verification of these determinations was performed by an-Overview Specialist.

2)-

In cases where it appeared that a statement was recorded that, in fact, failed to meet the criteria defining an assertion of deficiency (see Attachment 4-E), the statement was reexamined I

along with the text of the litigation record document from which it was taken, Statements ~found not to meet the criteria were not reviewed further by the Discipline Specialists.

However, as a double-check, these statements were further l

evaluated by Overview Specialists.

h 3)

The Discinline Specialist could determine that the substance of' l

the assertion was not safety-related. The specific criteria l

used by the Discipline Specialists in this determination are listed in Attachment 4-F.

Assertions of deficiency determined D'

l not to be safety-related were not reviewed further by the i

Discipline Specialists. However, these assertions were further evaluated by Overview Specialists.

4)

The Discipline Specialist could determine that the South Texas Project had previously identified the substance of the assertion for resolution. This determination was based on an examination of STP documentation and was governed by the h-criteria listed in Attachment 4-G.

The types of STP documentation that could be relied upon for this purpose were L

defined by HL&P (see Appendix C); they are documents maintained as part of the official STP records. Assertions of deficiency 3

resolved or identified for resolution in STP documentation were 4-10 O

b

.j considered closed for the purposes of the Litigation Re:ord ff Review Program. An independent verification of these dispositions was perforscd by an Overview Specialist.

l 5)!

Finally, the Discipline Specialist reviewed any assertion of deficiency not disposed of as described above to determine whether it was factually erroneous.

In making this q

L1 determination,- the Discipline Specialist applied the decision E

criteria in Attachment 4-H.

Assertions determined to be

[

factually erroneous were considered closed. An independent j

l verification of this disposition was performed by an Overview Specialist.

Discipline Specialists were encouraged to communicate with one another as well as with the Overview Specialists and Team Leader (and his l

designees)'to resolve potential interdisciplinary concerns.

3 The Discipline Specialists entered the information describing the disposition of assertions.into SLI's database system. A single Disposition Form could be used to dispose of more than one assertion if the assertions referred to the same deficiency.8 SLI Computations then provided.the Discipline Specialist with a computer printout of the form.

.The Discipline Specialist checked the printed form for accuracy and signed it; this became the official Disposition Form and was filed with tl.e L

Records Center. Any subsequent changes to the Disposition Form were made f

by formal revisions. All versions are retained by the Records Center.

{

Under the procedures governing the Litigation Record Review Program, any assertions of-deficiency that were not determined to be not safety-related, were not shown to have been identified for resolution in Project I'

8 In some cases a single Disposition Form was used to dispose of assertions describing different deficiencies but subject to the same disposition

).

because they were addressed in the same Project documents or pertained to the same specific SSC.

h 4-11

3:

i.

documentation, and~ could not be shown to be factually erroneous were ta be documented on an HL&P. Deficiency Evaluation Form. All Deficiency Evaluation Forms were to be sent to HL&P STP Engineering for evaluation in I

accordance with existing STP Procedures.

In fact, no such assertion was identified in Phase III.

Q c.

Second-Level Reviews by Overview Soecialists Overview Specialists independently verified all Discipline

O Specialists' determinations that

an assertion had been previously

^

identified in the review of the litigation record of HL&P v. B&R or of Phases I or II of COA v. HL&P; STP has already resolved the matter covered l7 by the assertion or identified it for resolution; or the assertion is factually erroneous.

If the Overview Specialist could not verify the

(

determination, the assertion was reassigned to the Discipline Specialist for alternate disposition.

,0 -

Those statements determined by the Discipline Specialists not to constitute assertions were reexamined by Overview Spec'.alists, who again applied the " Criteria for Identification of-Assertions of Deficiency" (Attachment 4-E) to verify that the Discipline Specialist was correct in O

his determination that the statement was not an assertion of deficiency.

Where the Overview Specialist concluded that a statement had been properly determined not to constitute an assertion, he signified his agreement on the Disposition Form, and no further review of that statement was O

performed.

If the Overview Specialist determined that the statement did L

constitute an assertion of deficiency, the assertion was reassigned to the Discipline Specialist for disposition as an assertion of deficiency.

!O All assertions of deficiency that were determined by a Discipline Specialist not to be safety-related were also reviewed by Overview Specialists. Using the criteria in Attachment 4-I, the Overview Specialist O

determined whether the assertion presented concerns arising out of systems

(

4-12 (O

interaction considerations or from the possibility that the substance of p-the assertion crossed discipline lines.

If such concerns were determined to be present,.the~ assertion was to be assumed to be safety-related and treated as 'if it were safety related. That is, the substance of the assertion would be examined'by'the Overview Specialists to determine p

whether the substance of the assertion had already been identified by the South Texas Project or whether it was factually erroneous, using the criteria in Attachments 4-G and 4-H.

The individual Overview Specialist's determination that an assertion was not safety-related was reviewed by a p.-

panel of Overview Specialists. The panel consisted of Overview Specialists with a broad spectrum of technical expertise. The panel's concurrence that the assertion was not safety-related from a systems interaction standpoint was required. Unanimity was reached in all cases.

D The Overview Specialists were encouraged to consult with other Overview Specialists, Discipline Specialists, or the Team Leader to maintain awareness of the various types of asserted deficiencies being D

examined during the review process. Under governing procedures, any assertions that were safety-related but that could not be shown to have been identified in Project documentation and were not shown to be factually erroneous were to be documented on a Deficiency Evaluation Form and sent to B:

HL&P STP Engineering for evaluation in accordance with existing STP Procedures.9 In fact, no such assertion was identified.

d.

Administrative Control of S. Levy Incoroorated Review Process SLI's detailed review of selected litigation record materials was conducted under formal administrative controls. They provided a means of measuring compliance with review procedures while the review process was D-under way, thus permitting early identification of the need for any 9 Assertions determined not to be safety-related were nonetheless provided to HL&P for information.

4-13 D

l-J remedial or corrective action. They also provided a means for determining 31 whether the finished product of each phase of work complied with procedures, again facilitating' identification of the need for any rework.

The quality of the review process was monitored by a sampling scheme.

D-Approximately 10 percent of each Reviewer's work was required to be evaluated by individuals qualified to the level of a Team Leader (see page B-2). Evaluation of a Reviewer's work consisted of a line-by-line review of the litigation record document reviewed and annotated by the Reviewer D-and the resulting Assertion and NRC Citings Forms and preparation of checklists showing whether the original work complied with procedures.

Departures from procedures were corrected.10- The results of the j

evaluations of each Reviewer's work were examined to assess the profic.iency DS of the' individual Reviewer.

l The quality of the assertion dispositioning process was assured by a verification process. All dispositions of assertions were independently D ~-

verified by an Overview Specialist.

In addition, the Team Leader performed sample evaluations of dispositions, g

The evaluations of the Reviewer's work and the dispositioning process demonstrated that the program had been effectively implemented.

4.

Comoletion of the Work and Issuance of the Report 9

The work of the Discipline and Overview Specialists was completed on September 8, 1989. Compilation and analysis of review results took place in September of 1989. All issues raised by SLI and HL&P QA were resolved.

g; This Report was issued in November 1989.

10 Note that the nature of the evaluation process as explained above is 8

equivalent to reperformance of the work.

4-14 O

F k - A y

OUTLINE OF LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROCESS Trial Transcripts

-Interrogatory. answers, responses to requests for admission

- Deposition transcripts

- Affidavits

)

- Exhibits designated for trial or filed with motion for summary judgment Identified d umentati n appr priate for SCREENING litigation record review process sel eted documents yes

~

Document reviewed during RECORD prior litigation review?

lno Identined ali assertions of deficiencies in INITIAL REVIEW STP structures, systems, and components l

T assertion forms Asselrtion dispositioned during 708 RECORD prior litigation review?

jno Evaluate all assertions for l

DISPOSITION REVIEh, 3

appropriate disposition or Intradiscipline Interdiscipline Ho meets assertion meets assertion criteria?

no-criteria?

DI4 yes l 708 Interdisciplinary effect safety-related?"-- or s stems interactions?

g D

I yes yes project praj ct OI',

documentation?.

documentation?

DF

{ "o n

I'8 factbally yes factually DF y

erroneous?

I erroneous?

no DF no deficiency evaluation form D

Tr^""*it" d t"'l*

" "Il f" '""'87 STP TEAM LEADER correct and safety-related assertions not previously identified HL&P STP ENG'R'G MGR Notes:lDFl = Disposition Form f

RECORD

= Record Center 4-A-1 i

D

D',

l -B 1

(O.

CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE SELECTION OF

~

INTERROGATORY ANSWERS AND RE0 VESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FOR REVIEW J

O, This document sets forth the guidelines to be followed to ensure that all interrogatory answers and requests for admissions possibly containing-l-

l

.information related to the design or construction of STP systems, structures, or components are reviewed.II' l

O-1 A.

CRITERIA 1.

When there is any reasonable doubt' as to whether a set of interrogatories should be included, it must be on the list of O'

documents to be reviewed.

2.

If a set of interrogatories requests information on the following subjects, that set of interrogatories must be O.

included for review.

l Engineering for STP, including engineering analysis and L

.the design of any systems, structures, or components for the project; Construction work at STP; e

i QA or QC activities or programs for STP; and O-Reviews or reports on engineering or construction for STP.

3.

If a set of interrogatories requests information gnly about the O

following subjects, the set of interrogatories may be excluded from review unless the reviewers are aware that the answers or 11 For convenience, the word " interrogatory" as used in these criteria and

'O-methodology applies to both interrogatories and requests for admissions.

4-B-1 O

Q{

l set of answers contain information relating to the design or Q

construction of.STP_ systems,' structures, or components:12 Accounting, economics, and the financial ability of the owners to complete the project; O

Personnel qualification, turnover, and staffing levels; Project schedule and the percentage of engineering or construction work completed; Bechtel's, Ebasco's, and B&R's history and experience as architect / engineers outside their performance on STP;-

Owner's selection of B&R as architect / engineer; O'

HL&P's or the other Owners' experience in design and construction of facilities other than STP; STP Participation Agreement between Owners and associated O-legal responsibilities; Identification or quantification of damages or statements e

relating to damages (without requesting information O-concerning the underlying bases for those damages);

Identification or genuineness of documents; The fact that a meeting took place or the number of e

O persons attending the meetings; and Project cost estimates.

O 12 If an interrogatory or set of interrogatories requests information on those topics A.n.d on any of the topics listed in 2, above, the answers n

O corresponding to those interrogatories must be reviewed.

1 4-B-2 0'

L B.

METHODOLOGY D-1.

Persons conducting the screening.

The initial screening to determine whether interrogatory answers should be reviewed will be performed by a team of one pl attorney and one engineer / specialist familiar with the design of STP and with issues in.the litigation.

2.

Steps in screening, p1 Each set of interrogatories will be examined under the criteria set forth in A.

If any interrogatory within a set is determined to be reviewable, that set will be included for review.

For each entire set of answers determined not to be p-reviewable, a short statement will be prepared explaining the reasons why each interrogatory within that set should not be reviewed, and this statement will be signed by the engineer / specialist and the attorney.

For questions containing a

multiple ~ subparts, if any subpart merits review, the entire answer to the question (and therefore the entire set) must be included for review.

The screening team will prepare a list of all sets of interrogatories that will be reviewed, In addition, the screening team will prepare a list of sets of interrogatories that will not be reviewed and attach to that list signed short statements explaining the reason why each interrogatory within those. sets will not be reviewed, y

p--

4-B-3 9

3 l

ATTACHMENT 4-C

-- 3

' CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FOR REVIEW This document sets forth the guidelines to be followed to ensure that-j all deposition transcripts possibly containing information related to the design or construction of STP systems, structures, ir components are reviewed.

3 A.

CRITERIA l..

When there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a deposition should be reviewed, it must remain on the list of documents to 3

be reviewed.

2.

If the witness held any of the following positions on STP, the deposition must be included for review:

Engineer, Designer, Draftsman, or any Engineering Management position; Quality Assurance Inspector, Supervisor, or Manager; e

Quality Control Inspector, Supervisor, or Manager; e

Construction Manager, Laborer,_or Craft Worker; e

Licensing Engineer, Supervisor, or Manager; and e

9 Purchasing / Procurement Personrcl.

3.

Depositions of witnesses in the following categories can be w& O'-

excluded from detailed review, unless the screener knows that any of the deposition testimony is related to the technical adequacy of STP design or construction:

.O 4-C-1 0:

L' OL n

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and e

y Department of Justice employees and former employees; Scheduling and project controls witnesses; e

e Accounting, legal (attorney), economics, and financial O!

witnesses; Officials of the State of Texas; e

. Polling, public opinion, psychology, and media e

. communications witnesses; Lobbyists, legislative relations, and government e

relations witnesses; 0

CP&L Board of Directors and Executive Officers; e

HL&P Board of Directors and Executive Officers; e

0; City of Austin officials; e

City Public Service Board of San Antonio officials; and e

Newspaper, magazine, radio, and television station O

employees.

13 4.

If the deposition is a Rule 201 deposition or a segmented personal deposition, it can be excluded from detailed review if O-the subject of the deposition is one of the following or if the deponent falls within one of the categories listed in A.3, above. However, if the deponent held one of the positions O

13 A Rule 201 deposition develops in the following manner. One party serves another party with a notice stating that it desires to take the other party's deposition on a particular subject (e.g., impact of regulatory change on STP). The other party then provides a witness knowledgeable about that subject to testify.

In Rule 201 depositions, the questions and testimony related only to the particular subject described in 0:

the notice of deposition.

4-C-2 0

4 p

[

p[

listed in A.2, above, or if the screener knows that any of the deposition testimony is related to the technical adequacy of STP design or construction, the deposition shall be included for review.

Financial constraints on completion of the Project; D

Personnel qualifications, turnover, and staffing levels; Project-Control (tracking progress of work on STP against published schedule);

. Negotiations and Terms for the contract between the STP

.l e

Owners and B&R;-

l Administrative matters concerning document collection and p

e production in the litigation; i

Project Cost Estimates; 1

e D--

Public Relations and Marketing; Site Access for Construction; e

Damage Theories and Quantification; e

STP Participation Agreement between the Owners; and e

Nature and Effect of any tolling agreements between the p,

STP Owners or between the STP Owners and B&R.

i S.

Rule 201 or personal segmented depositions may agi be excluded from detailed review if the subject of the deposition concerns any of the following:

Any STP system, structure, or component; QA/QC activities or documentation which relate to any STP e

p system, structure, or component; and j

4-C-3 B~

r..

n L

Reports or reviews concerning the quality of STP o

engineering, construction or QA/QC of any STP system, g'

' structure, or component.

B.

METHODOLOGY 9-1.

Persons conducting the screening.

The screening to identify the depositions to be reviewed will be performed by a team of one attorney and one engineer / specialist familiar with the design of STP and with issues in the litigation.

2.

Steps in screening.

6.

Each deposition will be examined under the criteria set forth in A, above.

For each deposition determined not to require review, a short statement will be prepared explaining the reasons why that deposition should-not be reviewed, signed by e.

the engineer / specialist and the attorney.

The screening team will prepare a fist of all depositions that will be reviewed.

In addition, the screening team will prepare a list of all depositions that will not be reviewed and attach to that list the signed short statements explaining the reasons why each listed deposition will not be reviewed.

O.:

O' e

4-C-4 0

)

ATTACHMENT 4-D CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS FOR REVIEW I

4h document sets forth the guidelines to be followed to ensure that all affidavits and exhibits filed with motions for summary judgment and L

exhibits designated for trial (collectively referred to as " exhibits")

possibly containing information related to the design or construction of STP systems, structures, or components are reviewed.

A.

CRITERIA 1.

When there is any reasonable doubt as to whether an exhibit should be included for review, it must remain on the list of l

documents to be reviewed.

Exhibits that are very large and consist of multiple documents or sections may be split into individual documents for screening and review purposes.

2.

Exhibits that are depositions, interrogatories, or requests for l-admissions that are part of the COA v. HL&P record are being reviewed under the screening criteria for those documents and h-will not be separately reviewed under this set of criteria.

In f

addition, the following categories of exhibits will be excluded from review:

i Project documents already maintained in the STP Records Management System, annual public financial reports of the STP Owners, or documents provided to all of the STP Owners during the regular course of business, or f

h documents recording meetings between joint committees of the STP Owners; Documents already screened in the HL&P v. B&R Litigation e

3 Record Roview Program; 4-D-1 9

i c

i Documents prepared by, transmitted to, or maintained in the' files of the NRC or other U.S. Government agencies, and minutes or reports of meetings at which the NRC was in attendance; PUC case materials, including prefiled and oral testimony except for the.prefiled testimony of expert witnesses in-Docket 6668 where those witnesses have also been designated as witnesses in the C0A v; HL&P litigation; and j,

Newspaper or magazine articles, press releases, or radio -

1 L

or television' broadcasts.

i bl 3.

If the document addresses one of the following topics, and 'is l

not one of the class of documents described in A.2, above, the document suit be included for review:

L 1

The quality of engineering for STP, including engineering O

analysis and the design of any systems, structures,'or L

components for STP;

- The quality of construction work at STP;

[

The quality of QA or QC activities or programs for STP; y

and L

Reviews or reports.on engineering or construction for STP.

4.

If an exhibit contains information ADh about the following subjects or is of the type as listed below, it may be excluded i

from review unless the reviewers are aware that it contains F

D 4-D-2 O

N tn f

a

~4.,-

technical information relating to the quality or design or construction of STP systems, structures, or components.14 y

Accounting,' economics, cost estimates, project. controls',

e scheduling,'and damages quantification;-

Lobbying,- government relations, or legislative relations; D

e Personnel qualifications, turnover, organization, and e

staffing; I

Public' opinion, polling, or media communications; e

Negotiations and representations between the STP Owners or between the STP Owners and B&R; D

General nuclear industry information not specifically e-related to STP; Newspaper articles, periodicals, and advertisements; e

)

Documents prepared by or submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission; Radio / television presentations; e

Commercial documents such as contracts, proposals, e

purchase orders, receipts, or other business agreements; D

Documents prepared by or submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice; Court hearing transcripts, court orders, legal pleadings, e

y and other documents presenting legal arguments or affidavits of lawyers, paralegals, or legal secretaries; 14 If an exhibit contains information on these topics (n.d on any of the topics listed in A.3, above, the exhibit must be reviewed, unless it is D

among the categories of documents listed in A.2, above.

4-D-3 D

(

h:[

Documents prepared prior to January 1, 1973; D?

Published decisions of courts or administrative e

tribunals;

-Documents prepared for purposes of the Texas Public e

g Utility Commission proceedings relating to STP which have been made publicly available through filing in those proceedings (except for documents prepared by persons designated as witnesses in the COA v. HL&P litigation);

y and Ordinances, public reports, or official notices or e

statements issued by the City of Austin, Texas.

O B.

METHODOLOGY 1.

Persons conducting the screening.

The screening to determine whether the exhibit should be reviewed will be performed by a team of one_ lawyer and one engineer / specialist familiar with the design of STP and with issues in the litigation.

2.

Steps in screening.

Each exhibit will be examined under the criteria set forth in A.

All exhibits that require review will be marked as such and g

recorded.

For each exhibit determined not to require review, a short statement explaining why no review is required will be prepared and signed by the engineer / specialist and the attorney.

O The screening team will prepare a list of all exhibits that will be reviewed.

In addition, the screening team will prepare a lict of all exhibits that will not be reviewed and attach to O

4-D-4 0

7,,

.f' i

that list the signed short statements explaining the reasons r

why.each listed exhibit will not be reviewed.

t-r e

.i i t 3,

1 i..

i i

l' n

9 I

?

4-D-5 J'

ATTACHMENT 4-E DL CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ASSERTIONS OF DEFICIENCY in order to be recorded, an assertion must satisfy each of the following y

criteria:

1.

The assertion must pertain to at least one of the following or to their associated design or quality control documents:

D 1.1 STP systems, structures, or components (SSC);

1.2 Classes of STP SSC (such as valves, reinforced concrete walls, B

electric systenis);

1.3 Processes relating to specific STP SSCs (such as welding,-

coatings); or D

1.4 The overall STP site (data or studies on meteorology, seismology, demographics, etc.).

2.

The assertion must either:

D 2.1 Describe a deficiency. A deficiency is a defect which will or may impair the ability of an SSC to perform its intended g

function; or 2.2 If the assertion does not include any specific deficiency, as defined under 2.1, it must pertain to documents providing D.

objective evidence of the quality of design or construction for specific SSCs at STP (absence of calculations for system X, lack of verification documents for component Y, incomplete QC records for weld N, etc.).

D 4-E-1 9

l

.:y 3.-

'The assertion must satisfy one of the following criteria:

6

['

~ 3. l ~

It was made by a witness'in testimony; i-l.

3.2 It was confirmed by a witness accepting a statement by a

1

-g1 lawyer; or:

l 3.3 It was made~by a party in an interrogatory answer, request for r

admissions, or exhibit. -

s i.

J l

6 l

k i

O O

1 1

10' 1

4-E-2 10'-

y?

ATTACHMENT 4-F p

CRITERIA FOR SAFETY DETERMINATION 1.

An assertion of deficiency that involves system (s), structure (s), or h

component (s) which have been classified by the South Texas Project as one of the following is a safety-related assertion:

Safety Class 1 Safety Class 2=

j Safety Class 3 l

f Class IE Seismic' Category 1 2.

An assertion of deficiency that involves-system (s), structure (s), or component (s) that-are listed in the STP FSAR Section 3.2 or in the l

Bechtel Energy Corporation Design Criteria for the South Texas p

Project as safety-related items is a safety-related assertion.

3.

An assertion of deficiency that involves system (s), structure (s), or component (s) with a Total Plant Numbering System (TPNS) number that l3' designates a safety-related item (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) is a safety-related assertion.

[O o

o

)

4-F-1 0

l T

ATTACHMENT 4 G CRITERIA FOR DEMONSTRATING STP IDENTIFICATION 1.

The STP documents cited by the Specialist as evidence of prior identification of the substance of an assertion by the STP must completely cover the specific assertion of deficiency.

2.

The STP documents by the Specialist must show:

k that the deficiency asserted has been corrected;

=

that the deficiency asserted is in the process of being corrected; or that the deficiency asserted has been identified for l

e resolution.

1 3.

Documents cited as reflecting corrective action or identification for resolution of the asserted deficiency must appear on the list of documents approved for' reference on Disposition Forms.

)

4.

The reasons why STP documentation shows adequate identification or

. corrective action must be clearly stated by the Specialist.

3-4-G-1

)

-r

[

ATTACHMENT 4-H CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION ON FACTUAL BASIS D.

1.

STP documentation must provide positive evidence showing the assertion to be factually erroneous. Unless STP documentation provides such positive evidence,- the Specialist may not classify the assertion' as factually erroneous.

2.

The referenced STP documentation must describe the system, structure, or component as designed or constructed at or after the time the deficiency is asserted to have existed.

3.

The reasons why the documentation shows the assertion to be factually erroneous must be clearly articulated by the Specialist.

D BL D

D-D 4-H-1 D

7 ATTACHMENT 4-1

}

-CRITERIA FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SYSTEMS INTERACTION DETERMINATION i

'l.

An assertion of deficiency that-involves disciplines other than that of the Discipline Specialist who initially determined that the

' substance of the assertion is not safety-related must be reviewed by the Overview Specialist to determine whether it is safety related.

h q

=2.-

An assertion of deficiency that involves system (s), structure (s), or component (s) (SSC) other than those considered by the Discipline Specialist in his initial disposition of the assertion as not safety-related must be reviewed by the Overview Specialist to determine whether it is safety-related.

~

-3.

If the SSC considered by the Discipline Specialist shares a component or a process or has physical supporting connections to another SSC, the assertion must be reviewed by the Overview Specialist to i

' determine whether it is safety-related.

4.

'If the functional or physical failure of the SSC considered by the l

Discipline Specialist in dispositioning an assertion could propagate to other SSCs, the assertion must be reviewed by the Overview Specialist to determine whether it is safety-related, i

):

4-I-1 D

[_ -

Attachm7nt 4-J l

I LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW FLOWCHART j

l O

Categorize: interrogatory answers: responses

{

to requests for admissions: depositions:

transcripts: affidavits: exhibits designated l

for trial or filed with motafms for summary judgment.

1 r

j p

)

g i

Does a e.teien.eni ree.rded i

&,el,n.e...o,4ee,

,a insteri i to rewe.or.

m)

.g,,a;,,r,g,e;,=,y;a;

<.e erunn of darknency v l,os, (see Attatt Inent d'I')

(DS)

I

( terify l A*

Y,3 See sneteafel redeved in Yff l

t 4

giete40cc bugetton revieve ? (see Note 1)

(R)

Renesign 6esersisti to lhD II Disciphne Speenalist.

(TL) f hecord,l l No f(DS) kood review a.nater661 and record ii.e eruene of

..e.seeruon found in yi..

g y,,,,I j

.defielency in engr. end m

,evie.cus,hbgetich pree6 e

(.ee Note )

ios) - "o - >

pos>

onst. of rrP.

O, pe. o,.ii typ No jgos3 Y,,..e esseruon found in I veore 1 previo.e uu.eues Considerm, u.e inter.

s j,,

revie s v (no net. 3)

(s)

M.ted,t*d'g'a*y'.

r{D

'1",' '

leenufy pro. ject, doeuer...i*

t su.o,a nei dd ses

,ei as, h

i,te,o,d i

N, su eci of seeeruon.

ws) ooes u.e si.te.nent reco,de.

ID8I

• [ritorie for identificouen Yt3 Or don't kno#

t' the reviewer sneet Lt.e

(*)

Qerif of Aewrtion of def6e6ency t' I

"'# ! @II No la there project dot'utnent*

(see Atterbanent 4*El (DS) l ouen on the substanes of the

~~~) ggg pgy ggp j y,g END If8

""'IU'" '

(DS)

Group together meeertiene Idenufy project documeet*

C.4% lend themeches to the 2

suon abowing tesertion to

"*-"")

lhD same Dneposiuon.

(pg) be factually erroneous. (ps) l le seurtion foetually erroneous ?

(DS) yg 0-

,, L,e..e, tion,, de,leien,, i yo i voarr I(=)

iNo or don 1 know safety'reisted ?

(pg)'r l

l p,eps,e der (DS) l END lYes to there project document-Ye8 Idenufy project documeet*

suon on the substance of the euen that addressee esseruon T (DS) subject of assertion.

(DS)

Rettes and send DI.F to ETP.g O

No I__

l

] f ortfy l (DS) le essertion foetually II END J

erroneous t (D$1 v

gD

, No or d_on't knos-lPrepareDET II3Il Identify project document

• bgend for Actielty ation showtog steertion to Responsibudy be factually erroneous. (DS)

Qs TL T,eam lAader

,ee.e, penew and send Drr to stP.

(TL) l y,,gfy l(OS)

DS DioetPith, SPeenshot 08 Overview Speciahst g.

END Note le HL&P Y. B&R or Phase I of coa Y. ItL&P or

'n Phase !! of CDA V. HL&P V

4-J-l O

i O-SECTION 6 i

O QUALITY ASSURANCE A.

INTRODUCllDil O

The detailed review of selected litigation record documents performed by SLI was closely monitored under a Quality Assurance program conducted by l

SLl's Corporate Quality Assurance Manager. Two (2) QA audits by HL&P's Nuclear Assurance department were also performed.

O B.

S. LEVY lhCORPORATED OUALITY ASSURANCE The SLI Quality Assurance Program was conducted in conformance with O

SLI's standard Quality Assurance Program Manual, Rev.1, and procedures issued pursuant thereto. SLl's Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, who reports direct 1/ S SLI's President, directed all aspects of the SLI QA Program for the twiew independent of SLI's personnel assigned to perform 0

the review.

The functions of SLI's QA Program were to monitor compliance with the contract, SLI's QA Manual, and the Plan and Procedures during and at the c0 conclusion of the review.

In addition, SLI QA performed substantive

[

surveillance of the Litigation Record Review Program on a sampling basis.

l SLI's QA Program for the review was implemented by SLl's Corporate QA Manager and a qualified and experienced QA Specialist. These QA personnel O

were experienced in the QA/QC technical specialties and also had considerable experience in nuclear plant design, construction, and operations.

Each participated in formal training sessions for the Litigati n Record Review Program.

O_

Two distinct types of QA oversight of the review work were conducted in Phase !!I.

First, 25 individual QA reviews were performed throughout Phase III of the review process.

These QA reviews consist;d of the O

conventional QA/QC checks on the qualifications of personnel, the l

51 lO L -

-~-

processing and control of documents, records collection and storage, and j

).

compliance with applicable SLI litigation review proceoures.

Secondly, substantive surveillances of the review work were performed during Phase !!!. These substantive surveillances went beyond the normal

)

application of conventional QA/QC principles in that the technical bases

+

and the logic process leading to the engineering decisions were checked for compliance, completeness, and consistency. Sixty three (63) of the 460 assertion forms generated were examined in this manner. This included

)

examination of samples of litigation record documents reviewed by each l

Reviewer, along with the completed Assertion Forms and NRC Citings Forms, if any, for those documents, to assure that all assertions and substantive s

references to the NRC appearing in the litigation record documents were properly recorded.

In addition, sixteen (16) dispositions (including a representative sample for each of the four Discipline Specialists) of the 338 dispositions processed were evaluated and all four (4) of the overview l

dispositions were similarly examined along with the Project documents referenced on these forms to assure that the documentation adequately supported the dispositions.

No issues or problems were discovered by SLI QA during these QA reviews and substantive surveillances. As a result, no Action Item f

Requests (AIRS) or Deviation Reports (DRs) were issued as a result of l

routine review and surveillance activities. Three(3)AIRswereissuedas l

a result of findings from the first HL&P audit. See discussion, below. An I

AIR is used to document an apparent deviation from specific requirements or

)

to request clarification of a specific issue. A DR is used to document a clear deviation from specific requirements and the evaluation and I

resolution of that deviation. This problem definition and resolution system was available to SLI's QA specialists, HL&P Project QA, and other h

participants in the review.

SLI QA Specialists are responsible for l

participating in and monitoring the evaluation, resolution, and closeout of all corrective action associated with the AIRS and DRs.

)

5-2 h

l

1 O

At the conclusion of the review effort, SLl's QA Manager prepared a i

.O report summarizing his findings for the entire surveillance effort.

in general, it was concluded that there were no outstanding issues, the review had been conducted in a technically competent and controlled fashion, and i

that the program objectives had been met.

]

O C.

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OUALITY ASSURANCE j

i HL&P's Nuclear Assurance (NA) Department performed two audits of 0

Phase 111 of the litigation review effort. The audits were structured to 2

cover every type of litigation document sent to SLI for review and were conducted using HL&P NA procedures. The resulting audit reports were issued in accordance with these procedures and were available for review.

O The reports concluded there were no outstanding issues and that the SLI Litigation Record Review Program adequately met HL&P's Quality Assurance and technical requirements.

Four (4) deficiencies were detected during the first HL&P audit and

.O-resulted in SLI issuing three AIRS in response to HL&P's findings. Three (3) of the deficiencies were considered by HL&P to be minor, isolated incidents and were corrected and closed out during the audit. The fourth j

deficiency resulted in the issuance of an HL&P Deviation Report and was

[

.O l

related to the dispositioning of assertions with unapproved documents.

Appropriate corrective action was taken and the second, follow up audit by HL&P verified that the conduct of the review activities had been in compliance with the SLI QA Program and procedures.

.O 4

'O l

5-3

.O

. O. '

SECTION 6 OVER$1GHT SY THE SENIOR ADVISORY PANEL O

HL&P selected a Senior Advisory Panel (the Panel) to monitor the Litigation Record Review Program to assure that the objectives of the review are achieved. The Par.el, the same as the one that monitored the program for Phases I and !!, is described in the Phase I report dated O

November 1988. For Phase Ill, the Panel reviewed the litigation review program and the draft of this report with the Team Leader and representatives of the SLI and HL&P QA organizations. The Panel is expected to issue a statement shortly after issuance of this report.

O O

t O

'O O

'O 61

.O

O 1

SECTION 7

.O REsuLTs 0F THE LITISATION RECORD REVIEW A.

RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PROCESS The screening process resulted in the inclusion of a substantial portion of the litigation record for detailed review by SLI.

Listed below are the results of the screening process for each category (trial transcripts, depositions, exhibits, and interrogatories) of documents screened during Phase !!!. Note that since the trial transcripts were reviewed in entirety with the exceptions described in Section 3.B. they did not go through the normal screening process described in Section 4.A.

g 1.

Trial Transcriots Total number of volumes of transcripts.

(February 22, 1989, through July 5, 1989.)

118 2.

Deoositions a.

Total number of deponents screened 2

b.

Deponents whose depositions were included for detailed review 2

c.

Deponents whose depositions were

'o~

excluded from detailed review 0

d.

Total number of deposition vgumes included for detailed review 13 O~

O 15 This total includes additional volumes from previously selected deponents.

7-1 0

0 3.

Exhibits Desianated for Trial O

a.

Total number of exhibits designated for trial 803 b.

Number of individual exhibits designated for trial included for 16 347 O

detailed review as a result of screening 4.

Interroaatories (Includino Reauests for Admissions) a.

Total number of sets of interrogatories screened for review 36 0

b.

Number of sets of interrogatories included for detailed review 2

5.

Exhibits Attached to Motions for Sumary Judoment a.

Total number of exhibits attached to O

Motions for Sumary Judgment 15 b.

Number of individual exhibits attached to Motions for Sumary Judgment included for detailed review 0

.O'

-O

O O

16 For convenience of the review process, SLI counted as an item each exhibit or part of an exhibit, when an exhibit had been subdivided.

In counting exhibits, HL&P had counted each subdivided exhibit as one. As a

!O result, HL&P's count of exhibits included for review is 54.

7-2 0

O Table 7-1 identifies the originators of the litigation record docunents transmitted to SLI for review.

y TABLE 7-1 Litiaation Documents Transmitted to SLI for Review O

Trial Transcriots No. of Volumes From February 22, 1989, through July 5, 1989 118 C).

Denositions Source No. of Volumes 1.

HL&P employee or i

former employee 2

.C) 2.

City of Austin employee or former employee 2

3.

Others 9

Total 13 1

C) l Exhibits Source No. of Exhibits 1.

HL&P letterhead 11 c) 2, 8echtel letterhead 1

3.

Brown & Root letterhead 20 4.

Others 115 Total 147 l)

Interroaatories 4

Source No. of Sets 1.

Prepared by HL&P 2

IC)

Total number of documents to 3

be reviewed by SLI 280

O 7-3 0

t Thus, of the documents reviewed by SLI, 154 (or 55 percent) were p

generated by the City of Austin, HL&P, Bechtel, or Brown & Root, and 45 percent came from other sources.

B.

RESULTS OF S. LEVY INCORPORATED DETAILED REVIEW D

1.

Identification of Assertions of Deficiency SLI Reviewers recorded a total of 460 assertions of deficiency in the litigat kn record documents reviewed. A total of 492 statements were p.

originally recorded on Assertion Forms, but, after a two tiered review of these statements by the Discipline Specialists and Overview Specialists, 18 were determined not to meet the criteria for identification of assertions of deficiency and 14 were from documents which had previously been p.

reviewed. This left a total of 460 actual assertions of deficiency to be disposed of.

Of the 280 documents reviewed, 155 documents had no assertions.

The 460 assertions were scattered over the remaining 125 documents. Over 60%

of the documents contained 3 or fewer assertions and the maximum number from a single document was 32. The distribution of assertions by source is set out in Table 7-2.

D D

D D

74

l 0-l TABLE 7-2 i

O Distribution of Assertions by Su rgg No. of Source Assertions E of Total Trial Transcriots O

1.

Plaintiff's Witnesses 68 15 2.

Defendant's Witnesses 98 21 Denositions O'

l.

HL&P employee or former employee 11 2.5 2.

City of Austin employee or former employee 2

0.5 3.

Others 7

1.5 O

Exhibits 1.

HL&P letterhead 12 3

2.

Bechtel letterhead 2

0.5 3.

Brown & Root letterhead 10 2

4.

Others 218 47 O

Interroaatories 1.

Prepared by HL&P 32 7

Total gg gg lO 10 1

10 7-5 lO

)

i The assertions identified fell within three technical areas. Table D

7-3 shows the distribution of assertions by technical area.

TABLE 7-3 Distribution of Assertions by Technical Area D

No. of Technical Area Assertions

% of Total 1.

Mechanical D

a. Piping, including hangers, supports, restraints, etc.

42 9

b. Balance of plant steam, condensate, and feedwater components 21 4

c. Nuclear steam supply system and components 18 4

D

d. Pumps, tanks, valves, and other specific mechanical components 37 8

e. Materials handling and storage 9

2

f. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 22 5

g. Radwaste, water, and services 1

0.25 g

h. Welding 54 12

1. Paint and coatings 19 4

2.

Civil / Structural

a. Concrete and concrete p

reinforcement 89 19

b. Structural and miscellaneous steel 35 8

c. Anchor bolts and embeds 14 3

d. Building layout and fenestrations 17 4

e. Site / soil 41 9

9 3.

Electrical

a. Instrumentation and controls 8

1.75

b. Cables, ducts, trays, and penetrations 15 3

c. AC power distribution system 6

1.33 9

d. DC power distribution system 3

0.67

e. Radiation detection, industrial protection, and ancillary systems 9

2 Total 4[2 g

D 7-6 B

L Over 40 percent of the assertions pertained to areas which had been extensively reviewed during the period of the NRC IR7g 19 investigation and p-the Order to Show Cause. Concrete and concrete reinforcement, soils, paint and coatings, and welding were all thoroughly examined during and following the 79-19 investigation.

I Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems in most STP buildings were completely redesigned by Bechtel after 1981. Bechtel also substantially redesigned B&R's layout of cables, trays and ducts, and redesigned or completed substantial portions of B&R's piping design, along I

with associated pumps, tanks and valves. Anchor bolts and embed problems had been subject to repeated examination both before and after Brown & Root was replaced. Together, these areas accounted for approximately 20 perc:ent of all assertions.

2.

Disposition of Assertions Assertions identified were dispositioned as follows:

I The substance of 285 assertions was determined to have been a.

previously identified in the HL&P v. BLR or Phases I or 11 of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program.

b.

The substance of 5 assertions was determined not to be safety-related and not to preser.t interaction or interdisciplinary

Concerns, c.

The substance of 168 assertions was determined to have already g

been identified in Project documentation, d.

Two assertions were determined to be factually erroneous.

D Table 7-4 shows the disposition of assertions from the various litigation record sources.

77 D

l l

TABLE 7-4 Disposition of Assertions by Source Previously NotSafgy-Project Factually inurce Identified Related Connirant Erroneous Trial Transcripts g

1. Plaintiff's Witnesses 62 2

4 0

2. Defendant's Witnesses 84 0

14 0

D Denositions

1. HL&P employee or f roer employee 6

0 5

0 D

2. City of Austin employee or former employee 1

0 1

0

3. Others 2

0 5

0 D

Exhibits

1. HL&P letterhead 8

1 2

1

2. Bechtel letterhead 2

0 0

0 D

3. Brown & Root letterhead 3

0 7

0

~4. Others 104 2

111 1

O Interroaatories

1. Prepared by HL&P 13 0

19 0

TOTALS gg},

}

g g

9 17 This column includes assertions found not to be safety-related and not to present systems interaction or interdisciplinary concerns that could D

affect the operation of a safety-related system.

1-8 l

9

O Assertions disposed of on the same Disposition Form either described O

the exact same deficiency or, in a few cases, were discussed in the same Project documents or pertained to the same specific SSC as the other assertions on the form.

Thus, the 460 assertions required only 338

)

separate dispositions.

O Table 7-5 illustrates the disposition of assertions by technical 1

area.

TABLE 7-5 1

O Disposition of Assertions by Technical Area Technical Area Disposition of Assertions O

Percent Percent Percent Percent i

Previously Not Safety-Project Factually Identified Rel ated Coonizant Erroneous

1. Mechanical 51.57 1.79 46.19-0.45 0

2. Civil /

Structural 73.47 0.51 26.02 0

3. Electrical 63.41 0

34.15 2.44

'o-Average for all assertions M

M M

9,J2 i

In sum, all of the assertions were determined either to have been previ usly identified and disp siti ned in the HL&P v. B&R or Phases I or O.

i 11 of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program, not to be safety-related, to have been previously identified or resolved in STP documentation, or to be factually erroneous. Over 60 percent of the assertions were dispositioned as having been identified and dispositioned O

in the HL&P v. B&R or Phases I or II of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program. Of the new assertions in Phase III of the COA v. HIR litigation record, more than 95 percent were shown to have been previously identified in STP documentation. The remainder were shown to be factually O

79 0

O erroneous or not safety related. This result is reasonable in view of the O-unusual level of scrutiny to which the STP design and construction have e

)

been subjected.

i The process by which these results were developed was subject to a number of independent checks, including QA programs conducted by SLI and y

HL&P (see Section 5), and oversight of the Senior Advisory Panel (see 4

Section6).

In addition, SLI management evaluated the performance of each i

stageofSLl'sreview(seeSection4).

Each of these checks provided assurance that the review process functioned properly and produced accurate g

results.

Finally, a detailed record of the review has been retained as a permanent record of the work.

O An overall review of the entire set of assertions was conducted by the Team Leader to see if the assertions might suggest deficiencies not otherwise disclosed or recognized. The review was performed by first O-sorting the assertions in groups by technical area (see Table 7-3). Then within each technical area, the assertions with the same disposition were grouped.

Examination of this listing did not suggest undisclosed or unrecognized deficiencies in STP SSC. The listing of assertions contains O

many repetitions-and assertions which had been identified in earlier phases of the review. A few new assertion subjects do appear, mostly from the later portion of the project construction. However, no pattern to suggest an underlying deficiency was detected.

'O

O O

7-10

'O

O l

SECTION 8 j

O CONCLU$ ION i

i This litigation record review was a detailed, comprehensive and O

systematic examination of those portions of Phase til of the C0A v. HL&P litigation record which were likely to contain assertions of deficiencies l

in STP systems, structures, or components and their associated design and l

quality documents.18 The review in this concluding phase included a

o.

detailed examination of the transcripts of the trial phase of the litigation. The review performed by SLI, like all previous reviews of the litigation record, did not disclose any previously unrecognized safety-related deficiencies in STP systems, structures, or components. The O.

results of the review demonstrate that safety related deficiencies asserted in the litigation have already been identified. This fact underscores the thoroughness and success of the earlier intensive reviews performed on the STP.

Because this review was subject to extensive QA and management O

review, there is a high level of assurance that it functioned properly and l

produced accurate results.

l O

!O-l l

l iO 18 As explained in Sec on 3.B. part of the litigation record containing proprietary information was excluded from the review conducted by S. Levy Incorporated. HL&P reviewed those materials and is reporting the results

.O of its review separately.

81 0

l-)

i APPENDIX A J

This Appendix lists litigation record documents reviewed by S. Levy Incorporated.

8 The documents are grouped into four major types. These are:

Document Tvon Beainnina on Pace Trial Transcripts A-1 p'

Oral Depositions A5 Exhibits Designated for Trial A6 Interrogatory Responses A-14 Trial Transcriots D

The trial transcripts are listed in chronological order.

Each entry represents one volume of testimony.

Oral Depositions B

The oral depositions are listed alphabetically by deponent.

If the deponent participated in a deposition resulting in a transcript of more than one volume or participated in more than one deposition, these are e

listed consecutively by date within the deponent's alphabetical listing.

Exhibits Desianated for Trial The exhibits designated for trial have been listed in numerical order according to the identification number assigned by HL&P.

Interroaatory Responses Interrogatory responses are listed in chronological order.

D l

Ai D

O Appendix A Document Number Document Title O

D0001 Trial Transcript Dated 02/22/89 D0002 Trial Transcript Dated 02/23/89 D0003 Trial Transcript Dated 03/02/89 O

D0004 Trial Transcript Dated 03/03/89 D0005 Trial Transcript Dated 03/06/89 D0006 Trial Transcript Dated 03/07/89 O

D0007 Trial Transcript Dated 03/08/89 D0008 Trial Transcript Dated 03/09/89 D0009 Trial Transcript Dated 03/09/89 O

D0010 Trial Transcript Dated 03/10/89 D0011 Trial Transcript Dated 03/13/89 D0012 Trial Transcript Dated 03/13/89 O

D0013 Trial Transcript Dated 03/14/89 D0014 Trial Transcript Dated 03/14/89 D0015 Trial Transcript Dated 03/15/89 O

D0016 Trial Transcript Dated 03/15/89 D0017 Trial Transcript Dated 03/16/89 D0018 Trial Transcript Dated 03/16/89 O

D0019 Trial Transcript Dated 03/16/89 D0020 Trial Transcript Dated 03/20/89 D0021 Trial Transcript Dated 03/20/89 O

D0022 Trial Transcript Dated 03/21/89 D0023 Trial Transcript Dated 03/21/89 I

l A-1 lO

!O

Appendix A Document Number Document Title D0024 Trial Transcript Dated 03/22/89 D0025 Trial Transcript Dated 03/22/89 D0026 Trial Transcript Dated 03/27/89 D0027 Trial Transcript Dated 03/27/89

.D0028 Trial Transcript Dated 03/28/89 D0029 Trial Transcript Dated 03/29/89 D0030 Trial Transcript Dated 03/29/89 D0031 Trial Transcript Dated 03/30/89 D0032 Trial Transcript Dated 03/30/89 D0033 Trial Transcript Dated 04/03/89 D0034 Trial Transcript Dated 04/03/89 D0035 Trial Transcript Dated 04/04/89 D0036 Trial Transcript Dated 04/05/89 D0037 Trial Transcript Dated 04/05/89

~

D0038 Trial Transcript Dated 04/06/89 D0039 Trial Transcript Dated 04/06/89 D0040 Trial. Transcript Dated 04/10/89 D0041 Trial Transcript Dated 04/10/89 D0042 Trial Transcript Dated 04/11/89 f

D0043 Trial Transcript Dated 04/11/89 I

D0044 Trial Transcript Dated 04/11/89 D0045 Trial Transcript Dated 04/12/89 3

D0046 Trial Transcript Dated 04/12/89 D0047 Trial Transcript Dated 04/13/89

}

A-2 i

b

L Appandix A

)

Documsnt Number' Document Title D0048 Trial Transcript Dated 04/13/89 D0049 Trial Transcript Dated 04/17/89 D0050 Trial Transcript Dated 04/17/89 D0051 Trial Transcript Dated 04/18/89 D0052 Trial Transcript Dated 04/18/89 D0053 Trial Transcript Dated 04/19/89 D0054 Trial Transcript Dated 04/19/89 D0055 Trial Transcript Dated 04/20/89

~

D0056 Trial Transcript Dated 04/20/89 D0057 Trial Transcript Dated 04/24/89 p

D0058 Trial Transcript Dated 04/24/89 D0059 Trial Transcript Dated 04/25/89 D0060 Trial Transcript Dated 04/25/89 p

D0061 Trial-Transcript Dated 04/26/89 D0062 Trial Transcript Dated 05/08/89 D0063 Trial Transcript Dated 05/08/89 p

D0064 Trial Transcript Dated 05/09/89 D0065 Trial Transcript Dated 05/09/89 D0066 Trial Trnnscript Dated 05/10/89 p

D0067 Trial Transcript Dated 05/10/89 D0068 Trial Transcript Dated 05/11/89 D0069 Trial Transcript Dated 05/11/89 p

D0070 Trial Transcript Dated 05/15/89 D0071 Trial Transcript Dated 05/15/89 A-3 D'

D

Appendix A Number Document Title D0072 Trial Transcript Dated 05/16/89 I-D0073 Trial Transcript Dated 05/16/89 D0074 Trial Transcript Dated 05/16/89 D0075 Trial Transcript Dated 05/17/89 I

D0076 Trial Transcript Dated 05/17/89 D0077 Trial Transcript Dated 05/18/89 D0078 Trial Transcript Dated 05/18/89 I

D0079 Trial Transcript Dated 05/22/89 D0080 Trial Transcript Dated 05/22/89 00081 Trial Transcript Dated 05/22/89 D

D0082 Trial Transcript Dated 05/23/89 00083 Trial Transcript Dated 05/23/89 D0084 Trial Transcript Dated 05/24/89 B

D0085 Trial Transcript Dated 05/24/89 D0086 Trial Transcript. Dated 05/25/89 D0087 Trial Transcript Dated 05/25/89 D

D0088 Trial Transcript Dated 05/30/89 D0089 Trial Transcript Dated 05/30/89 D0090 Trial Transcript Dated 05/31/89 E

D0091 Trial Transcript Dated 05/31/89 D0092 Trial Transcript Dated 06/01/89 00093 Trial Transcript Dated 06/01/89 0

D0094 Trial Transcript Dated 06/02/89 D0095 Trial Transcript Dated 06/05/89 A-4 g

D

Appendix A Document

. Number Document Title D0096 Trial Transcript Dated 06/05/89 D

D0097 Trial Transcript Dated 06/06/89 000W8 Trial Transcript Dated 06/06/89 D0099 Trial Transcript Dated 06/06/89-D D0100 Trial Transcript Dated 06/07/89 D0101 Trial Transcript Dated 06/07/89 00102 Trial Transcript Dated.06/08/89 D

D0103 Trial Transcript Dated 06/08/89 D0104 Trial Transcript Dated 06/12/89 D0105 Trial Transcript Dated 06/12/89 D

D0106 Trial Transcript Dated 06/13/89 D0107 Trial Transcript Dated 06/16/89 D0108 Trial Transcript Dated 06/19/89 D

D0109 Trial Transcript Dated 06/19/89 D0110 Trial Transcript Dated 06/20/89 D0111 Trial Transcript Dated 06/22/89 D

D0112 Trial Transcript Dated 06/26/89 D0113 Trial Transcript Dated 06/26/89 D0114 Trial Transcript Dated 06/27/89 D.

D0115 Trial Transcript Dated 06/27/89 D0116 Trial Transcript Dated 06/28/89 D0117 Trial Transcript Dated 06/29/89 D

D0118 Trial Transcript Dated 07/05/89 D0119 Oral Deposition of ALLEN, ROBERT D.; Vol. 1; Dated 11/14/88 D

A-5

O Appendix A Document Number Document Title D0120 Oral Deposition of ALLEN, ROBERT D. ; Vol. 2 ;

()

Dated 11/15/88 D0121 Oral Deposition of ALLEN, ROBERT DONALD; Vol.1; I

Dated 05/04/89 D0122 Oral Deposition of GOLDBERG, JEROME H.; Vol. 1;

()'

Dated 05/08/89 i

D0123 Oral Deposition of GROSS, ROBERT M.,

JR.; Vol.

1; Dated 12/21/88 D0124 Oral Deposition of HANCOCK, R.L. ; Vol.1; Dated

.O 10/17/88 D0125 Oral Deposition of NANCOCK, R.L. ; Vol. 4 ; Dated 11/17/88 D0126 Oral Deposition of HERNANDEZ, RALPH R. ; Vol. It O

Dated 05/02/89 D0127 Oral Deposition of RUCKLOS, GEORGE D.; Vol. 1; Dated 05/12/89 D0128 Oral Deposition of SANDLIN, L.S. ; Vol.1; Dated 7).

02/01/89 D0129 Oral Deposition of SCARLETT, HAROLD; Vol. 1; Dated 05/15/89 D0130 Oral Deposition of SCOTT, EUGENE R.; Vol. 2;

'g -

Dated 02/15/89 D0131 Oral Deposition of EAUSNER, ERIC R.; Vol. 4; Dated 02/03/89 D0132 Exhibit 787: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0133 Exhibit 799: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0134 Exhibit 800: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0135 Exhibit 801: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0136 Exhibit 802A: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0137 Exhibit 404: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial lO

^-

6 O

O Appendix A Document Number Document Title D0138 Exhibit 829: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0139 Exhibit 832: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0140 Exhibit 836: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0141 Exhibit 843: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0142 Exhibit 846: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0143 Exhibit 849: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0144 Exhibit 856: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0145 Exhibit 880: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0146 Exhibit 1887: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0147 Exhibit 1924: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0148 Exhibit 1959: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0149 Exhibit 1975: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0150 Exhibit 1981: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0151 Exhibit 1983: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0152 Exhibit 2023: COA Exhibit Designated for Trial D0153 Exhibit 2028: COA Exhibit Designated.for Trial D0154 Exhibit 3005: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0155 Exhibit 3008: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0156 Exhibit 3045: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0157 Exhibit 3070: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0158 Exhibit 3072: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0159 Exhibit 3073: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0160 Exhibit 3075: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0161 Exhibit 3076: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

A-7 l

lO L

I 1)

App 3ndix A Document Number Document Title D0162 Exhibit 3077: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0163 Exhibit 3087: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0164 Exhibit 3091: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0165 Exhibit 3107: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0166 Exhibit 3126: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0167 Exhibit 3130: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0168 Exhibit 3142: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0169 Exhibit 3159.5: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0170 Exhibit 3159.6 HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0171 Exhibit 3159.7: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0172 Exhibit 3159.8: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0173 Exhibit 3159.9: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0174 Exhibit 3159.10: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0175 Exhibit 3159.11: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0176 Exhibit 3159.13: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 9

D0177 Exhibit 3159.14: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0178 Exhibit 3159.16: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 9

00179 Exhibit 3159.18: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0180 Exhibit 3159.19: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

A-8 o

t

O APPendjx A Document i

Number Document Title D0181 Exhibit 3159.22: HL&P Exhibit Designated for

• 1. 1**

O D0182 Exhibit 3159.23

HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0183 Exhibit 3159.24: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0184 Exhibit 3159.26: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0185 Exhibit 3159.29: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0186 Exhibit 3159.30: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0187 Exhibit 3159.31: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0188 Exhibit 3159.32: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0189 Exhibit 3159.33: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

.O D0190 Exhibit 3159.34: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0191 Exhibit 3159.35: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0192 Exhibit 3159.36: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0193 Exhibit 3159.38: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0194 Exhibit 3159.39: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0195 Exhibit 3159.41: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0196 Exhibit 3159.42: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

^~

O O

()

AppOndix A Document Number Document Title D0197 Exhibit 3159.44: HL&P Exhibit Designated for O

Trial D0198 Exhibit 3159.45: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0199 Exhibit 3159.47: HL&P Exhibit Designated for O

Tri"1 D0200 Exhibit 3159.48: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0201 Exhibit 3159.50: HL&P Exhibit Designated for g)

Trial D0202 Exhibit 3159.55: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0203 Exhibit 3159.58: HL&P Exhibit Designated for

()

Trial D0204 Exhibit 3159.68: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0205 Exhibit 3159.69: HL&P Exhibit Designated for g

Trial I

D0206 Exhibit 3159.71: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0207 Exhibit 3159.72: HL&P Exhibit Designated for g

Trial D0208 Exhibit 3159.73: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0209 Exhibit 3159.74: HL&P Exhibit Designated for lg Trial i

D0210 Exhibit 3159.83: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial l

D0211 Exhibit 3159.84: HL&P Exhibit Designated for q).

Trial l

D0212 Exhibit 3159.86: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

()

A - 10 l

lO

O.

Appendix A Document Humber Document Title D0213 Exhibit 3159.88: HL&P Exhibit Designated for O

T#i*l D0214 Exhibit 3159.96: HL&P Exhibit Designated for r

Trial i

D0215 Exhibit 3159.97: HL&P Exhibit Designated for g,

Trial D0216 Exhibit 3159.98: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0217 Exhibit 3159.99: HL&P Exhibit Designated for g

Trial D0218 Exhibit 3159.100: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0219 Exhibit 3159.101: HL&P Exhibit Designated for T#1'l

.O D0220 Exhibit 3159.103: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0221 Exhibit 3159.104: HL&P Exhibit Designated for T#I'l

.O D0222 Exhibit 3159.105: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial l

D0223 Exhibit 3159.106: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial g

D0224 Exhibit 3159.107: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial l

l D0225 Exhibit 3159.111: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Lg Trial D0226 Exhibit 3159.112: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0227 Exhibit 3159.117: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

l D0228 Exhibit 3159.118: HL&P Exhibit Designated for L-Trial

.O-

^ ~ ll 10

Appandix A

-Document Number.

Document Title D0229 Exhibit 3159.119: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

().

D0230 Exhibit 3159.120: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0231 Exhibit 3159.121: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O-D0232 Exhibit 3159.125: HL4P Exhibit Designated for Trial-D0233 Exhibit 3159.126: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0234 Exhibit 3159.127: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0235 Exhibit 3159.128: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O-D0236 Exhibit 3159.129: HL&P' Exhibit Designated for Trial D0237' Exhibit 3159.130: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0238 Exhibit 3159.131: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0239 Exhibit 3159.132: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0240 Exhibit 3159.134: -HL&P Exl:ibit Designated for Trial D0241 Exhibit 3159.141: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 0-D0242 Exhibit 3159.142: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0243 Exhibit 3159.144: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial O

D0244 Exhibit 3159.148: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial A - 12 O

O

-Appondix A Docuser.t Number Document Title i

D0245 Exhibit-3159.149: HL&P Exhibit Desigt.ated for Trial l

D0246 Exhibit 3159.152: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial i

i~.

D0247 Exhibit 3159.154: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 4

- D0248 Exhibit 3159.155: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 1.

l D0249 Exhibit 3159.158: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial j

D0250 Exhibit 3159.159: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial l

l D0251

. Exhibit 3159.160: HL&P Exhibit Designated for j

Trial D0252 Exhibit 3159.161: HL&P Exhibit Designated for L

Trial D0253 Exhibit 3159.162: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0254 Exhibit 3159.165: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0255 Exhibit 3159.173: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0256 Exhibit 3159.174: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0257 Exhibit 3159.176: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

).

l D0258 Exhibit 3159.179: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial r

l D0259 Exhibit 3173: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0260 Exhibit 3177: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0261 Exhibit 3184: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial

)

A - 13 y

Appondix A Document Number Document Titie D0262 Exhibit 3185: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial g

D0263 Exhibit 3186: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0264 Exhibit 3194: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0265-Exhibit 3201: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial g

D0266 Exhibit 3222: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial' D0267 Exhibit 3241: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0268 Exhibit 3263: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D

D0269 Exhibit 3343(1): HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0270 Exhibit 3343 (8): HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0271 Exhibit 3343(17): HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial.

D0272 Exhibit 3343(21): HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0273 Exhibit 3343(45): HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial 1

)

D0274 Exhibit 3353: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial I

D0275 Exhibit 3354: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0276 Exhibit 3355: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial D0277 Exhibit-3356: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial I

D0278 Exhibit 3361: HL&P Exhibit Designated for Trial I

D0279 Pretrial Supplementation of Answers to Interrogatories (Incl Exh A-D), Cross Index C-22; Dated 09/04/87 0

D0280 HL&P's Second Pretrial Supplementation of Interrogatory Answers (Inc1 Exh A-J), Cross Index C-23; Dated 02/03/89 A - 14 g

l l

1

y:,

APPENDIX B

)I Appendix B lists the persons who participated in SLI's review of the documents listed in Appendix A.

)-

These individuals are divided into four groups: Team Leaders, Overview Specialists, Discipline Specialists, and Reviewers. Each person is listed in the highest category for which he or she is qualified by education and experience.

Team Leader is the designation for an individual whose education and experience 9) qualify him to perform all or any portion of the review. A Team Leader may perform as an Overview Specialist, a Discipline Specialist or a Reviewer, but

[

none of the latter three may perform as a Team Leader. An Overview Specialist may also perform as a Discipline Specialist or as a Reviewer, but neither of the latter two may perform as an Overview Specialist. A Discipline Specialist may also perform as a Reviewer, but a Reviewer may not perform as a Discipline Specialist.

4 p

The professional degree or degrees held by each individual and the primary

- areas-of expertise of the individual are listed immediately after the indbyidual'sname. The number of years of experience in the nuclear industry of I

each-individual and his other years of professional level practice are listed in D.

the columns titled " Professional Practice Years" and " Nuclear Experience Years."

'The number of years of professional practice is the total number of years the i

individual has practiced his engineering disciplines. The number of years of nuclear experience is that portion of the professional practice during which the p

individual has practiced his engineering disciplines in the nuclear industry.

J L

)

B-1 D

O<

L 1

l LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW TEAM OUALIFICATIONS Professional Nuclear Practice Experience Hallit Years Years I

TEAM LEADER -

C. B. Johnson, BS, Mechanical Engineering; 27' 24 Safety Analysis, Mechanical Systems, Instrumentation and Control, Equipment Design

-R. F. Petrokas,.MS, Engineering Mechanics; 23-17 Mechanical Systems, Piping,- Safety Analysis, Stress Analysis R. Srinivasan, PhD, Civil. Engineering; 17

'17 0

Piping, Stress Analysis, Civil Engineering, 5

Seismology, Management G. Walke, MS, Public Health; Safety 31 31 Analysis, Health Physics, Meteorology, Quality Assurance, Management (Utility)

OVERVIEW SPECIALIST 2 G. S. Lellouche, PhD, Nuclear Engineering; 32 32 04 Chemical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Physics DISCIPLINE SPECIALIST 3

'O L. A. Keller, MS, Mechanical Engineering; 14 14 Mechanical Systems, Electrical Systems, Safety Analysis, Licensing 3

g-Team Leader may perform the tasks of an Overview or Discipline Specialist or Reviewer.

2 Overview Specialist may perform the tasks of a Discipline Specialist or Reviewer.

O Discipline Specialist may perfonn the tasks of a Reviewer.

B-2 OL

y 1DT l

AFPENDIX C Oi Appendix C lists the Project documents _ approved by HL&P for reference on Disposition Forms to demonstrate STP cognizance of the substance of an assertion or to demonstrate that the assertion is factually erroneous.-

O

-4 O':

O-

.Q:

0

'O '

O O

c-1 O.

1 DOCUMENTS TO BE REFERENCED ON DISPOSITION FORMS l

A reference to one of the documents or categories of documents in the following list, sufficient to support the disposition, must be included on the Disposition Form whenever the disposition statement concludes that the substance of the assertion has been previously identified by STP cr that the assertion is factually erroneous. Dispositions not safety-related must use the reference documents given in SLI Review of COA v. HL&P Litigation Record, Litigation Review Procedure LRP-1, Table 5-1 (also reproduced as -F to this report), " Criteria for Safety Determination."

(

l.

The STP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

2.

HL&P Incident Review Committee (IRC) File material, including JOCFR50.55(e) reports.

3.

NRC Inspection Reports and HL&P responses to these.

l

'4.

Bechtel Energy Corporation (BEC) Design Criteria (DC) for-the South

[

Texas Project, e

5.

Controlled South Texas Project engineering documents. These include, among others:

)

Piping and Instrument Drawings (P& ids), Single-Line Drawings, and General Arrangement Drawings; I

Piping Isometric Drawings; h.

Design Specifications, Criteria, and Calculations; Stress Reports; 3I SSC Analyses; Brown & Root Technical Reference Documents (TRDs);

)

Bechtel Project Engineering Guidelines (PEDS).

C2

~

D 1

{

F 0:

' 6.

The following materials related to the April 30, 1980, Order to Show Cause and HL&P's responses thereto:

Oy NRC Special Investigation of Construction Activities, dated April 30, 1980, and attached materials; O

HL&P's.May 23, 1980, reply to the NRC's April 30, 1980, Order

to-Show Cause and attached materials; Reports prepared by HL&P, B&R, and their consultants on Show d

C"" i**"' 'P'*Ifi'"II#

1.

Expert Committee's Final Report on Adequacy of Category I Structural Backfill, South Texas Project Electric-Generating Station to Brown & Root, Inc., by A. J.

.O '-

Hendron, Jr., H. Bolton Seed, Stanley D. Wilson, dated January 30, 1981; ii.

Interim Report to Brown & Root, Inc., on Adequacy of o

Category I Structural Backfill, South Texas Project Electric Generating Station by-A. J. Hendron, Jr., H.

Bolton Seed, Stanley D. Wilson, dated July 12, 1980; iii.

Letter to J. L. Hawks of Brown & Root, Inc., from J. F.

g Artuso of Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc.,

titled:

Inspection and Testing for Show Cause Item 3b South Texas Nuclear Power Plant, dated July 25, 1980; O

iv.

Final Report of Safety-Related Concrete Show Cause Item 3(b) South Texas Project (no date or author on report);

v.

Review of Safety-Related Welding at South Texas Project O

Electric Generating Station, Final Report, dated April 1981 (no author listed);

vi.

Revisions to Final Welding Report (see previous items).

O-C-3 0

'O;

7. -

. Technical Evaluation of Anchor Bolts and Imbedded Rods, HL&P Report 07 on Anchor Bolts.

8.

B&R and HL&P Deficiency Trending Reports.

9.

STP Fire Hazards Analysis Report.

10.

STP. Technical Specifications.

11.

Reports of.HL&P Engineering Assurance covering specific areas of STP g;

design.

12.

STP Nonconformance Reports (NCRs), providing they have been validated.

O 13.

STP Field Change Requests (FCRs).

14.

STP Corrective Action Reports (CARS).

15.

STP Standard Deficiency Reports (SDRs).

16.

STP Deficiency Notices (DNs).

17.

STP Deficiency Evaluation Foms (DEFs).

O' 18.

STP Deficiency Evaluation Reports (DERs).

19.

STP Audit Deficiency Reports (ADRs).

O-20.

STP Engineering Change Requests (ECRs) 21.

STP Potential Change Notices (PCNs), provided that they have been signed by an HL&P Project Manager.

O' 22.

STP Design Change Notices (DCNs), provided'that they have been signed by an HL&P Project Manager.

23.

Formal memos and ' letters numbered to the standard STP numbering g'-

system (e.g., STP-HL-BR-xxxx, etc.).

l l

C-4 O

-24.

STP numbered Purchase Orders and Subcontracts.

[-

25.

Reports requested and received by HL&P on specific STP design or construction issues.

26.

NRC Commitment Status Report.

27.

Licensing Commitment Tracking System for Inspection Report Findings.

28.

Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) related to STP.

29.

Licensee Event Reports (LERs).

l; 30.

NUREG Reports related to STP (e.g...NUREG 1306, NRC Safety l

Significance Assessment Team Report).

1 31.

Brown and Root internal memoranda - BC-XXXX which copy HL&P personnel by name and are retrievable through STP Record Management System l

(RMS),

32.

Brown and Root Deficiency and Disposition Reports (DDRs) which are retrievable through HL&P RMS.

3 33' Brown and Root, HL&P, and consolidated Progress Reports.

h Documents other than those listed above may be referenced on the Disposition Form to supplement information provided by those documents.

However, a Disposition Form must reference those documents listed above which are sufficient to demonstrate independently that the STP has h

identified the substance of the assertion or that the assertion is factually erroneous.

The version of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the South Texas y

Project, Units 1 and 2, used by SLI was current through Amendment 61, dated June 16, 1987.

The Bechtel Design Criteria Manual for the South Texas Project used by SLI was current through revisions of February 23, 1988.

C-5 D-

e ST-HL-AE-3329 R

ATTACHMENT 2 HL&P REPORT ON REVIEW OF COA v.

HL&P RECORDS SEALED BY COURT ORDER NOVEMBER 1989 l

Al/045.NL8

HL&P REVIEW OP SEALED RECORDS Certain records generated in the COA v. HLAP litigation contained information considered proprietary or confidential by Westinghouse.

These records were sealed by the court.. Since both S. Levy, Inc. and Newman-l Holtzinger were involved in other litigation against Westinghouse, neither organization could conduct its customary record review function for the sealed records.

Per agreement with Westinghouse, screening of the sealed records was performed by personnel from HL&P and Minton, Burton, Foster & Collins, and the technical review for assertions was performed by HL&P personnel with assistance from Power Consultants Inc.

The review of the sealed records was perfoirad in accordance with the same procedures used by S. Levy, Inc. including personnel training, qualification and quality assurance. A list of the personnel involved is attached. The quality assurance overview, performed by HL&P QA,. identified no deviations.

A summary table of the review is attached. A total of fourteen-(14) ascertions were identified.

Those documents indicated as " included" are those which were identified during the screening process as requiring further review. Ten (10) of those were found to have been previously identified in the HL&P v. B&R Litigation Record Review Program or Phase I or Phase II of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program. The other four (4) were found to have already been identified for resolution in other STP documentation.

Twelve of the assertions were related to the availability of NSSS interface information in the early design stages of STP, The other two were related to differential settlement of the reactor containment.

In no caso did the review disclose any safety-related deficiency that had not already been identified by HL&P.

1 Attorneys from Newman-Holtzinger were participants in the programmatic engineer-lawyer initial screening process to identify records for review by S. Levy, Inc.

A1/045.NL8 l

Table of Confidential / Proprietary Westinghouse Documents Reviewed Defendant Exhibit Title Status 3043 Memo:

Functional Diagram / Requirement Excluded Schedule 3048B Letter of Appreciation (Maguire to Gennaro)

Excluded 3054 H Progress Report

. Excluded 3148A letters of Appreciation Excluded 3148B Marchese to Vogel Excluded 3151 Standard Information Package Transmittal Maguire to Crain Excluded 3153 Meeting with HL&P 2/7/74 (Maguire to McGuffin)

Excluded 3154 STP Project - H Document (Maguire)

Included 3155--

STP Project - W Document (Maguire)

Included 3156

- STP Project - W Document (Maguire)

Included 3157 STP Project -' W Document (Maguire)

Included 3163 STP Project - W Document (Hohmann)

Excluded 3168 Letter to Beavers Summary Chronology Excluded 3283 Evolution of Steam Generator Drawings STP Excluded 3056 Westinghouse Memo re STP Contract Included Plaintiffs Exhibit COA 81/HL&P 279 Maguire Report RE-NSSS and fuel Excluded COA 138/HL&P 444 G. L. Hohmann H Status Report (Duplicate of COA 885)

Excluded COA 877/HL&P 458 R. T. Marchese Memo - RE - H DWG.

Excluded COA 144/HL&P 459 Marchese letter to Durfee RE - H Included COA 924/HL&P 2199 Duplicate of COA 144 Excluded (Included as COA 144)

Trial Transerint Shepard Testimony Included Scaled Portion of April 11, 1989 Proceedings A1/045.NL8 1

1

--..J.

The following exhibits were excluded because they were not designated as trial exhibits:

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS HL&P 3026 HL&P 3025 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3152 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3027 HL&P 3029 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3158 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3028 HL&P 3032 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3162 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3048 HL&P 3034 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3169 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3054 HL&P 3044 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3174 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3047 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3282 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3055 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3284 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3147 (Roturned to H)

HL&P 3285 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3149 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3286 (Returned to H)

HL&P 3150 (Returned to H)

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS COA 625 (Returned to H)

COA 633-636 (Returned to H)

COA 639'(Returned to H)

COA 644-646 (Returned to H)

COA 653 (Returned to H)

COA 656 (Returned to H)

COA 661 (Returned to H)

COA 672 (Returned to H)

C0A 673 (Returned to H)

COA 674 (Returned to H)

COA 678 (Returned to H)

COA 679 (Returned to W)

COA 680 (Returned to H)

COA 699 (Returned to H)-

COA 705 (Returned to H)

A1/045 NL8

p ; ec -

3

[.

f-/

HL&P LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW i

TFJW QUALIFICATION HAME Professional Nuclear Practice Experience e,

Team Leader Years Years 3

A. W. Harrison Master of-Engineering, Nuclear Engineering;-Nuclear Engineering, i

-: Mechanical-Engineering, Piping, O

Licensing 15 14 J. C. LaVallee,: BS Electrical.

Engineering; Electrical Engineering, I&C, Nuclear Design 27 27 J.-R. Molleda, BS, Mechanical Engineering; Mechanical Systems,, Nuclear Systems 16 13 REVIEWER

'R. L. Parker, MS, Electrical Engineering;

' Licensing, Electrical Engineering Mechanical Design 21 4

L

/

Al/045.NL8 m--

g-.

r l-

=[ AbA-# hsb u

-w a h; 8

~ m'h ) bd';

4=.-

3--

wm

- ~ e w+.

--h"s i[-b b q li--

,-ny-y.-,32

- - ~ - -Y 4

aN+

't im

/.

4 1

~.

,,m,.

+#

ww w'h j.w.3,w-4d WWe m: n d

DtM k1 -ww((p'm[ s>

q w[ w f:(% m%,.gm;q+ W'f v,"

diIk a'_-)w mwe-5 3

a c:

+

a a '-

cx 4.

a y a% T '

w w u.x

'3

,L

'- (m!

va w '%;G

-a

..F

.fq bdP-'s w'j-- F t

g. d I P-OP

%J Nr i

w..N i

i~

r

'N-', Q/5 NI b p

t m' yam,m_

e m'-

g 1

^ t

^'^

7,"

=)y','.,

f.n, w O F-~

'x4 a1%.

.;y=

v,s-t r

A*y%d h

.d y. ' 'ueV-i">'

e s

w n..!

s u

e y 1^

T - -

d' y

l

^

c

i F N d -l J-:

,f(

I--

l2-e

$e e Ap.r / --- FM ;._* t q.

i --M p e % : m.'n~' ' ' ?tM i Q.-. %

W+ > )' T

~ % s. M 'a-'A;_ 3

,- ] 7 i

,c r

- up t

~ '

w:-

' Q(v

? -

p e ++ = 9 q:

5 h-

, M.'.

M,A.wM1 m#_~ei.a W@m%r:m;'. A Ew '@i:.: M %'ww p

4 m

1-ff 5

p et 5.,

s.

.ST. b AE-3329 % m 6

,e n

n a

tw;grn_awc.,#F% '.

t o n-r,

-,,r s,1 g

s e

c s

t r

s.v..

3 m

2

%Wc _

A

-s-

}

n.

g we, h qV.% h W:C:

u;1 f

r._

s, ww. hpu - c. -

m.

~m*'

~

q:,

n+ gL MAm '

p**

m a

+ ',

r:.

i c

1 2.,. L.'.

s

-v y

a g;phw@%.u :

s 4

, o

=

?

wn v

q.

s

-w

. m -

5

,, 2 a

s cU'

%@p Q uMW&_; 7,, c M>+

ir e

..r>

m ?c

.-M-

9 n.

.S

=.2

'w t

fW m

5. i.

0 s

+hw% m.w. w e

~c,. -.ws m,

a, s

c. c,

.4

, a

.s y

,c 8

i W,,.

~.=p'

'M'. p;,

-5.c.*

Nh!S[.

c u,

s a

N-I.

1-h[ c" 7 y - za*;).7 1.

3 g y,1 Nf[ A.y%MyN a

i 4

M.l 3 I

P

,y. 7~ W g

s l",*6 k 2#M$_ N'Mdbc d.

5 wn6 --

nn n

-v

.f. a

-, g:..

m.c' s_

. m M,s w awww; w

'- ~

. e n

w

+n 1s t: ^

d i

m-r+

i

~ ; 'w- :p'? ;.; i >

w i ' 2'. n

): M

': A :

h A

qip 5.+. ' }1 A}; cp,'1 y MQ t

>.:...a

?

+ p 4

i as

..i.-,

ws -.. = -

. c aN

' e:

q 4

,a - my n

n..:

.m:

.~

- 1 a,w,

.n, e

- ;o n.,

w-4y

~t#,

arm.

3 4 -

a mpg.m s

w c

+

q Ln in y7,

i

[2 ["M I Vd' -

.m dq;mm.e p.c y

.i

. c:

3,

. 9, - t ' s.

jt

+

e

-n. -

- +

g mac

• 6 w 'n_,- ;g a.

4_-

p.

<-w p,..

g:

3

+

H h^1.: >- st r

\\

r. :

Mm n&a w~_ g,

y-

, m-n.v p w

-. y 9,'

.~5'

.ZQMg:, -

n,+

e i

_. p.

uww

^

]?

m, m

[A,}wl Yr -,1 g

w.

Y'

)

32

[

+

y

.+:.

.4~

ry.

y_.

w,p >

e,y- '

r~pv y.

s s

.~

s, 4

g

,.a

).. _O e4 f.s, Q -..

.p; q%, \\ f. w

=li, 3 v

y i.:. >

vs ;

,. w

, r v

a __ ; u,-

g

,7 M. M

• 4 i

m

-i <

3

- ~. ;

..M;

.s

..ym;3 en 4=

- 4 r

u.

s mm m

4 1

i 1

4 i

.m M..t/h; s

Wh.- YW.,

-+...

4 s

s.?,-

'dj :

s

^

s.

~... m -g y

d g g

(

,,[.

• ) k 7

.k,,I g

,_ e_

y m

e

<gp

+ a w 3., o m._

1

+

.c a

~ #

'y 4'-

,N Q

- m g. '- yQ >

~"

a, a :m p y4 * %m

.. STATEMENT-0F THE1 SENIOR'ADVISORYJPANEL" i

V vATTACHMENTE3?

.r m am WI+R ~A, -

S 4

+ <

e W

" Ws,, m$

Y,

?

M FORsTHE.: SOUTH TEXAS 1 PROJECT' COA v'HiAP

&c-G i

i J

LITIGATION' RECORD REVIEW.

_. _ a.

J

k. o '

+

D

.s.

• m

~

x f(PHASE 11II)

( - 6 4

wt w~

yi.m a

m:

~

. i;.

x

<t_ r:. :

s,..:W u

-.n, e

c w

HI p

F

• j1,:-

(

-.y t

• w W '^,d a Q: -'

".4,

'3, J'

+ 'y? 1.-.1:.. %

i:

n m.

l

...a ut3 s

g'e s g f-i

i. 4 1

9 L

q

'Y'^

P.,

i 1

4

,,k u.-

l[

I

[Ih-h '.

."h.j'

^..g.-

-g

_, h sI

'.s. d

(

f.. % % ',g 1

i

,.'E g

{ft,' 3 3

d;n

'J

? iI s

+

-n,

-ld.U % ;

4

4. 4:n y.

s.,

14, a t

^- f 4

.j y' ', g;,' s r

-q _.

5x 3

h.

-.h y

i L _,

\\' he.i:

{_

b w.

r

.i ' ~

2 t-

.mi--.

n L.t'-

y S

W{d;.;

• :., s v.

aw r

e ve %

t q;..,

o. c:- =

gi

y%; w _ o

• " $ v.

..h: v[J s

s-7

.1.'-.,._N a &y %' %V,t*:n vh e-n%l.'y e GW

^

~

,.4 I

.i

! Ug (9 Q, r:

L%b g 'y hM' "~ l h.~

-f'"_.,'

s

y.

<dd, j

+

T 5

I [ $ "; C 3."

f hr p.

fB a

3 w3 1'

I L_~ ', f.

v'. f

= A1/045'.NL8 -

g f

-j J

yy 8 e

^

k

!7*je m

,f op-

> h S-

.m_

rw>

GTG.^ :wA; ::, t hkX.

-pe: :-

.%.-.D..

n e

~

w-

.i a

d J'

STATEMENT OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT COA V.

ML&P LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW (PHASE III)

I.

Introduction The Senior Advisory Panel (the Panel) was appointed to oversee the Program established to review the litigation record in City of Austin v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (COA v. HLLP). 1/

The purpose of the Program was to determine whether that record disclosed previously-unidentified, safety-related deficiencies in structures,-systems or components of the South Texas Project.

The Panel's Statements concerning Phases I and II of the Program were issued in November 1988 and April 1989 respectively and covered the pre-trial record through approximately mid-January 1989.

This Statement concerns Phase III, the final Phase for the Program, which covers the record from mid-January 1989 through July 5, 1989, when the trial ended and the litigation record was complete.

II.

Description of Phase III Phase III of the program was conducted in accordance with written procedures and methods essentially the same as those used in Phases I and II.

About 280 documents were reviewed by S.

Levy Incorporated (SLI) in Phase III.

The balance, about twenty documents containing Westinghouse proprietary information, were 1/

The origin and Charter of the Senior Advisory Panel (the Panel) are described in the Panel's Statement concerning Phase I of the Litigation Record Review Program which the Panel Chairman sent to Houston Lighting & Power Company on November 22, 1988.

reviewed by HL&P personnel with the support of consultant

. specialists.

The Panel's consideration of the reviews performed by SLI and HL&P are described below.

III. Means of Panel Oversight

.The Panel reviewed plans for carrying out Phase III in meetings held before the actual review work began.

During Phase III, the Panel met on May 24, 1989, at the South Texas Project site to review Phase III progress and methods.

It met again in the SLI offices on November 8, 1989, to review the final results, the draft final report on Phase III prepared by SLI, and the draft report on HL&P's review of the documents containing Westinghouse proprietary information. 2/

IV.

Results of Phase III Review

~No safety-related deficiencies were identified in Phase III which had not already been identified for resolution by the South _ Texas Project.

Of the 460 assertions of deficiencies which SLI identified in Phase III, the substance of 285 assertions was determined to have been identified and dispositioned in earlier phases of the COA v.

HL&P Litigation Record Review Program or in' the HL&P v.

B&R Litigation Record Review Program.

Of the remaining Phase III assertions found by SLI, the South Texas Project had already identified the substance of 168 and the remainder were found not to be safety-related or to be factually 2/

A Sub-group of the Panel, consisting of Chairman Lowe and Mr. Chewning, considered HL&P's review of these documents.

I i

,L_l -

erroneous.

HL&P identified 14 assertions of deficiencies in the documents containing Westinghouse proprietary information.

Of these-ten had been identified and dispositioned by SLI in earlier phases of the COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program or in the HL&P v. B&R Program.

The substance of the remaining four had already been identified by the South Texas Project.

V.

Overall Conclusions of the Senior Advisory Panel The Litigation Record Review Program found no previously-unidentified, safety-related assertions.

The Panel concludes that the Program's planning and execution were successful in generating complete and accurate results for all three Phases and that Program procedures were followed by SLI and HL&P.

The Panel is satisfied that the program would have detected any previously-unidentified safety-related deficiencies described in the COA v. HL&P litigation record completed on July 5,

1989, and that the results of the Program are supported by documents organized in a retrievable and auditable fashion.

The Panel further concludes that the SLI Reoort of the COA v.

HL&P Litication Record Review Proaram (Phase III) and HL&P's separate report on its review present a fair and comprehensive description of the Program's final phase and its results.

A X

~

Willdam W.

Lowe (Cha rman)

Dr. S lomon Levy gf dY December 14, 1989 i

_ _ -