ML20049J079
| ML20049J079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1982 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203120008 | |
| Download: ML20049J079 (29) | |
Text
,
3/10/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-445 ET AL 50-446 4
x
)
k
,N' J
- EWRO, (Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) t MAR)2 I "
NRC STAFF ANSWERS TO CASES'S FIRST AND SECOND SETS OF INTEP,ROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 5 Y
AND NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 4
Co g
I.
INTRODUCTION On February 10, 1982, CASE filed " CASE'S First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to NRC Staff" and on February 13, 1982, CASE filed " CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests To Produce to NRC Staff." Each set of interrogatories was accompanied by a letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereafter '"the Licensing Board")
in which CASE states that the interrogatories are filed " pursuant to 10 CFR 62.720(h)(2)(ii) and 2.720(h)(3)"; that all of the interrogatories
" deal directly with matters in controversy in these proceedings under Contention 5"1_/ (Letters of February 10, 1982 and February 13,1982at1) 1/
Contention 5, as admitted by the Licensing Board in its June 16, 1980, Order, alleges:
Contention 5.
The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to i
(Continued)
DESIGimTED ORIt)186 t q ~.u msA W L,,.,
8203120000 820310 l
gDRADOCK05000 h
d9 hj f
O,
and that:
"Therefore, these interrogatories and requests to produce are entirely relevant and necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding." (Letters, supra, at 2).
In addition, according to CASE:
"The answers to these interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source." (,Id.)
Although objections to these interrogatories in their entirety may properly lie on grounds of 10 C.F.R. 92.720(h)(2)(ii),2/ the Staff, in 1/
(Continued) concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness test-ing, expansion ioints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC) and training and organization of 0A/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Comission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.
(CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 Joint Contention)
-2/
The Comission's Rules of Practice specifically exempt the Staff from responding)to interrogatories except as provided by 10 CFR 92.720(h)(2)(ii. See 10 CFR 62.740b(a).
The provisions of 10 CFR 92.720(h)(2)(ii) are as follows:
[A] party nay file with the presiding officer written interrogatories to be answered by NRC personnel with knowledge of the facts designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
Upon a finding by the presiding officer that answers to interrogatories are necessary to a propo-decision in the proceeding and that answers to I
the interrngatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require that the staff answer the interrogatories.
lhis rule, as well as other regulations relating to discovery against the Staff, was explained by the Appeal Board in Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., et al.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and l
2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980).
As discussed below, the Staff specifically objects only to Interroga-(
tories 3(b) and 3(d) of CASE's First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatory 2 of CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories.
l
, keeping with the Licensing Board's direction,3_/ contacted CASE upon receipt of these interrogatories and convened a conference call on February 18, 1982 to discuss these interrogatories. Counsel for NRC Staff, the NRC Staff Project Manager for Comanche Peak (Mr. Spottswood Burwell), the NRC Resident Inspector for Comanche Peak (Mr. Robert Taylor), and CASE's representative (Hrs. Juanita Ellis) participated in this lengthy conference call.
During the conference call, the Staff pointed out that pursuant to 10 CFR 62.740b(a) and 62.720(h)(2)(ii), the Staff is not required to respond to CASE's Interrogatories unless the Licensing Board finds that the answers are "necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding", and that the ariswers are "not reasonably obtainable from any other source" and, on that basis, the Licensing Board directs the Staff to respond.
Nonetheless, the Staff voluntarily provided information during the conference call to CASE on 1) the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ("ASME") audits which are the subject of a number of CASE's interrogatories and 2) CASE's interrogatories. The Staff also stated
-3/
See Texas Utilities Generating Com3any (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), 14 NRC 150, at 154-157 (1981), wherein the Licensing Board directed the parties to, inter alia:
"... confer directly with each other regarding alleged I
deficiencies in discovery before resorting to motions involving the Board." Order, supra, at 9.
l In addition, in its " Order Subsequent to Prehearing Conference of December 1, 1981", dated December 18, 1981, the Board directed the parties to:
... provide each other with basic information to aid in di scove ry... " Order, at 4.
l
to CASE its understanding that the oral answers to the interrogatories provided during the conference call would obviate the need for written answers. See Staff counsel's February 19, 1982 letter to CASE's representative, Mrs. Ellis. However, CASE requested by a telephone call on February 23, 1982, that the Staff provide written answers to CASE's interrogatories.4/ In a telephone call on February 24, 1982, Staff counsel advised ifrs. Ellis that the Staff would file written answers to all of CASE's interrogatories to which the Staff does not object.
As indicated in Section II, the Staff has objected to certain of CASE's interrogatories. Attached hereto are the Staff's answers to CASE's interrogatories, together with the affidavit of Mr. Robert G. Taylor.E/
The responses to all of these Interrogatories except for Interroga-tories 1(b), 2, 3(b) and 3(d) of CASE's First Set of Interrogatories and
-4/
Despite Staff counsel's agreement to provide written answers to CASE's interrogatories, in a letter dated March 1,1982 to the Licensing Board members, CASE's representative, Mrs. Ellis, again requests the Board to order the Staff "to exgditiously answer our questions" (letter, at 2), even though Mrs. Ellis acknowledges Staff counsel's agreement to do so (Id.). Mrs. Ellis also states in the same letter that Staff counsel'sbruary 19, 1982 letter to her confirming the conference call "jumpec the gun" (CASE letter, at 2) by stating that written answers would iiot be necessary.
In this regard, the Staff does not believe that any purpose would be served by the Licensing Board ordering the Staff to answer CASE's inter-rogatories, since the Staff has done so by means of this document.
Further, the Staff merely wishes to note that the purpose of the February 19, 1982 letter was to confirm the conference call of February 18, 1982 and to state Staff counsel's understanding that Mrs. Ellis had not at that time stated that CASE wanted written answers to CASE's interrogatories.
-5/
The affidavit of Mr. Taylor is unsigned. However, a copy of his signed, notarized affidavit will be filed shortly.
Interrogatory 1(a) of CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories are based on information provided by Mr. Taylor.E II. OBJECTIONS The Staff cbjects to the following interrogatories for the reasons set forth below, and as indicated in Section III., seeks a protective order. The protective order is sought to protect the Staff from further burdensome requests on the identified subjects which the Staff believes are not appropriate for discovery against the Staff pursuant to the criteria in 10 CFR 6 2.720(h)(2)(ii). As noted below, notwithstanding the Staff's request for a protective order, the Staff has provided infor-mation in response to these interrogatories in an effort to be cooperative and to expedite this proceeding.
CASE's First Set of Interrogatories Interrogatory 3(b)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff informed the Licensing Board "of the certification problems referenced in these documents."
The Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable since it is requests information which 1) is not relevant to the issue raised by l
Contention 5 and 2) is not necessary to a proper decision in this pro-l ceeding. Contention 5 concerns whether alleged defects in the Comanche f
--6/
Staff Counsel responsed to Interrogatories 1(b), 2, 3(b) and 3(d) of CASE's First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatory 1(a) of CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories.
I
Peak construction QA/0C program prevent the Comission from making the findings necessary to issue an operating 11 cense, whereas this inter-rogatory, in essence attempts to probe whether or not the Staff is improperly withholding information from the Licensing Board.
However, in accordance with the Staff's discussion during the February 18, 1982 conference call and to expedite this proceeding, the Staff has voluntarily provided, as part of its attached answers to CASE's interrogatories, information in response to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 3(d)
This interrogatory requests, if the answer to (b) above is no, that the Staff explain why the Staff does not believe that "such certification problems come within the Board's Order to keep the Board advised of significant events in these proceeding."
The Staff finds this objectionable on the same grounds stated above with respect to Interrogatory 3(b). However, for the sane reasons there noted, the Staff is providing, as part of its answers, information in response to this interrogatory.
CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories Interrogatory 2 2(c)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff sees any similarities between the problems at CPSES and STNP [ South Texas Nuclear Project].
l The Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable since it is vague and an answer to it is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The Staff does not know what CASE means by " problems",
l
although it can be assumed CASE means problems with construction QA/QC.
This interrogatory is characterized by CASE as relating to Contention 5, which concerns alleged defects in construction QA/QC at Comanche Peak.
" Problems" at South Texas have no relation to this contention and are not a proper subject for inquiry in this proceeding.
However, in accordance with the Staff's discussion during the February 18, 1982 conference call and to expedite this proceeding, the Staff has voluntarily provided, infra, information in response to this interrogatory.
2(b)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff has made "any effort to assess the performance of Brown and Root at CPSES as compared to STNP;"
and whether the NRC Staff has made any " effort to assess the performance of the Applicants in the CPSES case as compared to the Applicants in the STNP case".
The Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable on the sane grounds stated above with respect to Interrogatory 2(a). However, for the reasons there noted, the Staff is providing, in its attached answers, information in response to this interrogatory.
2(c)
This interrogatory requests, if the answer to 2(b) above is yes, copies of all documents, "as well as work papers, internal memoranda and any other pertinent data or information."
8-The Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable on the same grounds statedabovewithrespecttoInterrogatory2(b). However, for the reasons there noted, the Staff is providing, in its attached answers, information in response to this interrogatory.
III. MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On the basis of the above stated objections, based primarily on 10 CFR $ 2.720(h)(2)(ii), and for good cause shown, the Staff respect-fully requests the Licensing Board to issue a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR H 2.740fc) that further discovery on Interrogatories 3(b) and 3(d) of CASE's First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatory 2 of CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories, to which the Staff has objected, not be had.
Respectfully submitted,
& & LL AofG c h (c/
Marjorie U. Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of March,1982.
NRC STAFF ANSWERS TO CASE'S INTERROGATORIES A.
CASE's First Set of Interrogatories arid Requests to Produce 1.
Interrooatory 1 This interrogatory cites 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Section XVII
" Audits" and requests the following:
1(a)
This intarrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff conducted any
" audits" to detect trends that may be detrimental to safe station operation at CPSES (Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2).
The provisions of IC CFR Part 50, Appendix B,Section XVIII, apply to the Applicants' Quality Assurance /Ouality Control program and do not impose any requirenents on the NRC Staff. The Staff does carry out a comprehensive program of documented inspections at the site, through the Resident Inspector and the Region IV Staff.
In addition, the Staff makes a " Systematic Assessment of Licehsee Performance"
("SAPL") which is also documented. The last documented "SAPL" was conducted at Comanche Peak on October 30, 1980 and is documented in Report Nos. "50-445/Rpt. 80-25" and "50-44S/Rpt. 80-25", November 12, 1980. The most recent "SAPL" at Comanche Peak covers the period from mid-1980 to mid-1981 and will be docunented in Report 81-20.
1(b)
This interrogatory requests that all " audits" be provided for copying and that the Staff advise CASE how CASE may obtain such
" audits" from the Public Document Room (POR).
NRC Staff inspections are documented in inspection reports which are issued by the Staff and made available to the public in
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR) and Local Public Docu-ment Room (LPDR). The "SAPL" reports issued by the Staff are also madeavailableinthePDRandLPDR.1/ Thus, these documents are available to CASE, as well as the members of the public, at the PDR, LPDR and " mini-LPDR."
In addition, CASE's representative (Mrs. Ellis) is also on (f(RC) Region IV office's distribution list for inspection reports and any "SAPL" reports and is personally sent copies of such reports by Region IV.
1(c)
This interrogatory inquires whether the fiRC Staff has conducted any " unofficial audits".
(i.e., perhaps not actual audits but efforts to detect such trends)..."
The Staff has not conducted any "urofficial audits" at Comanche Peak.
1(d) fio answer to this interrogatory is necessary, since it applies only if the answer to (c) above is yes.
Interrogatory 2 This interrogatory requests "the nemes and addresses, background information and subject natter for all witnesses which the Staff plans to call regarding Contention 5."
-1/
Staff counsel also understands that inspection reports are publicly available in the " mini-LPDR" established by the Staff in this pro-ceeding at the University of Texas at Arlington, Texas.
The Staff has tentatively identified the following individuals as prospective witnesses on Contention 5:
1)
Robert G. Taylor Resident Inspector Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region IV Office of the Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 2)
Robert C. Stewart Reactor Inspector Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV Office of the Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Copies of these individuals' statements of professional qualifications are attached.
The staff has made a preliminary determination that Mr. Taylor will address alleged defects in construction occuring after January 1, 1978 and Mr. Stewart will address alleged defects in construction occurring prior to that date.
Interrogatory 3 This interrogatory pertains to three letters attached by CASE from ASME concerning an "ASME Nuclear Survey" conducted at the Comanche Peak site on October 17-14, 1981.
CASE poses the following interrogatories concerning these documents:
3(a)
This interrogatory asks whether "the NRC Staff" was aware of these documents.
Prior to receipt of CASE's First Set of Interrogatories attach-ing these documents, Mr. Robert Taylor (the NRC Resident Inspector at Comanche Peak) and Mr. G. W. Reinmuth (Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Bethesda)U were the only members of the NRC Staff aware of the documents.
In addition, as stated infra, Mr. Taylor's immediate supervisurs in Region IV were aware of the ASME audits at Conanche Peak. Counsel for NRC Staff and Mr. Burwell (the Comanche Peak Project Manager), who received copies of the interrogatories and attachments, are now also aware of the documents.
3(b)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff informed the Licensing Board "of the certification problems referenced in these documents."
Although the Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable, for the reasons previously stated, the Staff is providing the following information in response to this interrogatory.
The Staff did not inform the Licensing Board of the
" certification problems referenced in" the documents CASE attached to its interrogatories.
3(c)
No answer to this interrogatory.is necessary, since it applies i
only if the arswer to (b) above is yes, y
Mr. Reinmuth is also a voting member of the ASME accreditation committee.
3(d)
This interrogatory requests, if the answer to (b) above is no, that the Staff explain why the Staff does not believe that "such certification problems come within the Board's Order to keep the Board advised of significant events in these proceedings."
Although the Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable, for the reasons previously stated, the Staff is providing the following information in response to this interrogatory. The Staff assumes that CASE is referring to the Licensing Board's Order of October 20, 1981, wherein the Board, in discussing the eleventh NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress (Bevill Report) emphasized that:
"... it is... inportant for the Board to be informed promptly and directly of any changes that might affect the hearing schedules."
(Order at 2).
The Staff did not inform the Licensing Board of the ASME audits since the Staff does not consider such audits to be within the scope of the Board's order (i.e., " changes that night have a bearing on scheduled [ hearing) dates"). Order, supra, at 2.
In addition, to Staff counsel's knowledge, the ASME audits at Comanche Peak have not been the subject of any " Board notification" l
by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
3(e) r This interrogatory requests that the Staff " provide, for inspection and copying all documents in the Staff's poJsession or of which the Staff has knowledge pertinent to the referenced certification problems..."
)
d
?
/
. The Staff has no documents within the scope of this request other than the letters already in CASE's possession which CASE attached to its interrogatories.
B.
CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests To Produce CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce primarily concern "I&E Report (81-12)", which as CASE indicates, has not been issued yet. I 1(a)
This interrogatory requests whether the NRC Staff " working on the Comanche Peak hearings" was aware, " prior to this pleading [ CASE's i
interrogatories] of this investigation and the I&E Report and its contents."
The Staff assumes that CASE's reference to "NRC Staff working on the Comanche Peak hearings" means NRC Staff counsel and Mr. Burwell, the Comanche Peak Project Manager.
Based on this assumption, the Staff's answer is no.
1(b)
No answer to this interrogatory is required, since this l
interrogatory applies only if the answer to (a) above is yes.
1(c)
In this interrogatory, CASE requests a copy of I&E Report l
l 81-12 as soon as it is available.
CASE, however, indicates that "the usual channels, through the Arlington office will be 3/
See NRC Staff Counsel's letter to Mrs. Ellis, dated February 19, 1982.
i
' I acceptable" but requests that it be notified by telephone as soon as the document is available.
The NRC Staff will notify CASE as soon as this document isreleased.S/
1(d)
This interrogatory requests the names of all the investigators who worked on the Report [ Report 81-12), the names of all other NRC personnel who worked on the Report, and the names of all other NRC personnel who reviewed the report prior to its release to the public.
In addition, CASE requests "the title and location of each
[ individual identified]."
In response to this interrogatory, the Staff identifies the following individuals:
Donald Driskill (Investigator, Region IV)
Richard Herr (Investigator, Region IV)
Robert Taylor (NRC Staff Resident Inspector for Comanche Peak)
Lawrence fiartin (Reactor Inspector, Region IV) 1(e)
This interrogatory asks whether the investigation discussed in I E Report 81-12 [was] conducted in whole or in part during the time frame of the ASME Nuclear Survey conducted on October 12-14, 1981, or the ASME Resurvey conducted about January 18-22, 1982".
The answer to this question is no.
-4/
As CASE is aware, before an inspection report is publicly released, it the Staff first sends it to the utility and provides a short period for the utility to review the report to determine if the report contains any proprietary information.
. 1(f)
No answer to this interrogatory is necessary, since it applies only if the answer to (e) above is yes.
.l_bd.
The introduction to this interrogatory indicates that it is to be answered "if the NRC was aware of the problems outlined in the AS!!E's November 23, 1981 letter... and/or the expiration of the NA and NPT Certificates...."
In this regard, the Staff assures that CASE's reference to "the NRC" includes the NRC Staff only. As the Staff's answer above indicatts, Mr. Robert Taylor is the only NRC Staff member having direct knowledge of the matters referred to by CASE in the intro-duction to this interrogatory, since Mr. Taylor was the only NRC Staff member who attended the Asi1E survey team exit interview with Brown & Root, Inc. on October 14, 1981. However, as also stated in the Staff's answer to Interrogatory 3(a), Mr. Reinmuth and Mr. Taylor's immediate supervisors were aware of the audit find-ings. On this basis, the Staff provides the following answers to the interrogatories designated 1(g)(1) through 1(g)(9).
1(g)(1)
This interrogatory asks if the NRC ordered or requested the Applicants "to discontinue work on items which usually would be stamped with the NA and/or NPT Code symbol stamps"?
The answer to this question is no.
1(g)(2)
This interrogatory asks, if the answer to (1) above is no, "why not"?
The Staff did not Order or request Applicants to discontinue such work because of the continued participation of the authorized nuclear inspection agency, Hartford Steam Boiler & Insurance Company.
In addition, based on Mr. Taylor's observations at the exit interview on October 14, 1981, the Staff does not consider the ASf1E findings to be of sufficient consequence to warrant a show cause order.
1(g)(3)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC ordered "any disciplinary action against the Applicants for the deficiencies outlined in ASME's November 23, 1981 letter to Brown and Root."
The answer to this interrogatory is no.
1(g)(4)
No answer to this interrogatory is necessary, since it applies only if the answer to 1(g)(3) above is yes.
1(g)(5)
This interrogatory asks, if the answer to (3) above is no, why the NRC did not take any action against the App 1fcants.
Seeanswerto1(g)(2)above.
1(g)(6)
This interrogatory asks whether or not it is "the usual practice for the NRC to allow work to continue on items which would usually be stamped with the NA or and/or NPT Code Symbol Stanps, af ter ASME has removed the Stamps from the contractor." CASE also asks if "it is the usual practice at CPSES" and if "it is the usual practice at all nuclear plants under construction"?
As a result of the ASME audit at Comanche Peak, the Staff would first point out that ASME did not " remove the NA and/or NPT Code Symbol stamps." As the ASf1E November 25, 1981, letter stated, the ASf1E decided to permit the " subject [NA & NPT] Certificates" to expire on January 8, 1982 and stated that "new Certificates will only be issued after evaluation of a successful resurvey report."
See letter of Novenber 25, 1981 to Brown & Root, Inc. The NRC Staff is not aware of any conparable situations elsewhere. Since this is the only time that the NA & NPT certificates at Comenche Peak were allowed to expire, there is no " usual practice" at Comanche Peak.
1(g)(7)
This interrogatory asks what actions the NRC has taken "to assure that the kind of problens outlined in the ASME's November 23, 1981 letter will not continue and will not happen again."
The NRC Staff does not consider the ASME findings to be sig-nificant enough for the NRC to require any remedial action by the Applicants to satisfy NRC requirements.
In particular, 10 CFR
(
i 6 50.55a(a)(2) requires that certain. reactor components shall, at a minimum, meet the requirements of 5 50.55(a), except that the ASME l
" Code N Symbol need not be applied".
10 CFR @ 50.55a(a)(2).
1(g)(8)
This interrogatory asks whether " work is actually still continuing on items which usually would be stamped with the NA and/or NPT Code symbol Stamps, without the contractor having the code symbol stamps."
The Staff's answer to this question is yes.
1(g)(9)
This interrogatory asks if the answer to 1(g)(8) above is yes, that the Staff " detail the NRC's basic position regarding such natters, including how such positions were reached."
The Staff's position is that in this situation there is no reason why work should not continue. This position is based on the Staff's judgment.
2(a)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff sees any similaritiesbetweentheproblemsatCPSESandSTNP[SouthTevas NuclearProject]?
Although the Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable, the Staff is voluntarily providing the following information in response to it.
The Staff does not see any significant similarity in the nature of " problems" with construction QA/QC at South Texas and any such alleged " problems" at Conanche Peak.
2(b)
This interrogatory asks whether the NRC Staff has made "any effort to assess the performance of Brown and Root at CPSES as compared to STNP;" and whether the NRC Staff has made any " effort to assess the performance of the Applicants in the CPSES case as compared to the Applicants in the STNP case".
l l
Although the Staff finds this interrogatory to be objectionable, j
on the same grounds stated with respect to Interrogatory 2(a), the Staff is voluntarily providing the following information in response to it.
Since Mr. Taylor, the Comanche Peak Resident Inspector was also the NRC Project Inspector at South Texas from June 1976 to January 1978 (at which time he assumed his duties at Comanche Peak) he is fan iar with construction at each plant. However, he has not prepared a written assessment comparing 1) the performance of Brown & Root at CPSES and South Texas and 2) the Applicants at both plants.
Based on the NRC Staff's documented inspections at Comanche Peak and South Texas, the Staff has not found any sini-larities in the nature of the inspection findings concerning 1) the performance of Brown & Root at CPSES and at South Texas and 2) the Applicants at CPSES and STNP. With respect to Brown & Root's role at CPSES and at South Texas, the role of Brown & Root at the two plants differs in that at South Texas, Brown & Root had total responsibility for construction, quality assurance / quality control and design.
In contrast, at CPSES, while Brown & Root has responsi-bility for construction, Gibbs & Hill, Inc. has responsibility for design and Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) has responsi-bility for all construction QA/QC except for pipe and pipe support 0A/QC, which lies with Brown & Root.
2(c)
This interrogatory requests, if the answer to 2(b) above is yes, copies of all documents, "as well as work papers, internal memoranda and any other pertinent data or information."
Although the Staff finds this interrogatory objectionable, the Staff is providing, for the reasons previously stated, the following information in response to it.
As the Staff's answer to Interrogatory 2(b) indicates, there is no documented comparison of CPSES and South Texas. The Staff's documented inspection findings provide the basis for a comparison oi the performance of Brown & Root at CPSES and at South Texas and the performance of the respective Applicants for each plant. As Mrs. Ellis is aware, inspection reports containing inspection findings for each facility are available in the POR and in the LPDRs for each facility.
i i
UtlITED STATES OF AflERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
)
50-446
)
(Comancho Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT G. TAYLOR I, Robert G. Taylor, being duly sworn, do depose and state:
1.
I am the NRC Resident Inspector at the Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
2.
I was responsible for providing information in the Staff's answers to CASE's First Set of Interrogatories (2/10/82) numbers 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d); 3(a) and 3(e) and CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories (2/13/82) numbers 1(c) and 1(d); 1(e);
1(g)(1),1(g)(2),1(g)(3),1(g)(5),1(g)(6),1(g)(7),1(g)(8),
1(g)(9); 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c).
I certify that the answers given are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Robert G. Taylor Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of March, 1982 Notary Public My Comission expires:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ROBERT G. TAYLOR OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMErlT, REGION IV UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
Mr. Taylor is currently the Resident Reactor Inspector at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Power Station.
In this position, he serves to coordinate all safety related inspection efforts relative to the NRC region and the site.
In addition, he maintains a field office, develops and recomends enforce-ment action, and acts as a liaison with regional, state and local agencies.
Prior to being the Resident Reactor Inspector at Comanche Peak, Mr. Taylor was the construction project reactor inspector at the South Texas Project from 1976 to 1978.
Mr. Taylor is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, specializing in quality control engineering.
Prior Work History 1978 - PRESENT Resident Reactor Inspector, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power
~
Station.
Duties include coordinating all safety related inspection efforts relative to the !!RC region and the site, as well as, maintaining a field office and being a liaison with regional, state and local agencies.
1976 - 1978 Construction Project Reactor Inspector, Arkansas Nuclear Power Unit No. 2 and South Texas Project. Duties included inspection of the South Texas Project while under construc-tion to ascertain whether this facility confomed to the provisions of the construction pennit and relevant l
specifications.
1974 - 1976 Reactor Inspector, Vendor Inspection Branch, Project Inspector for Stone and Webster Corp. and Combustion l
l Engineering, Inc.
1968 - 1974 Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Fort Calhoun Nuclear i
Power Station. Mr. Taylor was the Senior Quality Assur-l ance Engineer for Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
1962 - 1968 Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Af1F Inc. Duties in-cluded various quality assurance positions in regard to ballistic missile construction projects.
G
,.. ~...
. 1960 - 1962 Construction Section Supervisor, Quality Control. Titan 1.
Denver, Colorado, United States Air Force.
1953 - 1960 Electronic Section Supervisor, Quality Control, Chicago Air Procurement District, United States Air Force.
~ -..
Statement of Professional Qualifications Name:
Robert C. Stewart
Title:
Reactor Inspectnr Division of Resident, Projects, and Engineering Programs, Employer:
Region IV, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am a Reactor Inspector in the Projects Branch fl, Project Section A in the Division of Resident,-Projects, and Engineering Programs, Region IV, located in Arlington, In this position, I am responsible for inspections Texas.
and coordination of all safety-related inspections for facilities assigned to me within Region IV jurisdiction.
I held this assignment for the Comanche Peak Steam Elec-tric Station during the period July 1974 to January 1978.
FarragutCollege,Farragut, Idaho (Univ. Idaho)1946-48 Education:
Mechanical Engineering / Nuclear Engineering Heald Engineering School, San Francisco, Calif. (night 1953)
G.E. School of Nuclear Engineering, Richland,' Wn. (night 1943))
G.E. School of Nuclear Engineering, Richland, Wn. (night 1954 Pierce College, Woodland Hills, Calif.
(night 1967-68)
Engineering Management l
NRC Training Courses NRC Training Center Courses:
Concrete Technology & Codes Refresher Courses September 1981 June 1980 Nondestructive Examination Refresher Course Electrical Technology & Codes July 1979 BdR 4, Reactor Systems and operations May 1973 Feb. 1973 BWR 6 April 197S PWR W, NRC Reactor inspection techniques Dec. 1977 Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Welding technology and Codes Oct. 1977 l
Portland Cement Association
'Skokie Ill.
Feb. 1977 Concrete Technology and Codes i
Convair School for Nondestructive Testing General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div.
San Diego, California Jan. 1976 i
7 University of Texas at Arlington Nuclear Power Engineering Fall 1977 Graduate course:
Advance Problems in ME d
Solar Energy Spring 1978 Experience:
1971-Present:
Reactor Inspector, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission In this position I am responsibie :%
33 for project inspection of nuclear' 4
facilities under Region IV jurisidiction.
y Rockwell International (forin~erif f
1955-1971 Atomics International, Inc.)- Canoga{"-
Park, California.
Senior Facilities Project Engineer:
Assigned to the Program Office of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) Reactor fuel handling systems design Responsible at project level to and manufacturing.
coordinate, plan, and program the conceptual designs, i;i and testing of the FFTF. Duties also involved an Q,
8 assignment as Construction Manager, Sodium Component 2
Test Installation (SCTI).
Senior Research Engineer:-
II Assigned to SNAP Compact Power Systems. Testing, and As a member of the SNAP 10A launch Launch Team.
team, coordinated the transporation handling',' launch vehicle interfacing, and pre-launch and post-faunch I
testina of the world's first nuclear reactor to be
. t crbiteif in space.
Reactor Construction Engineer / Senior Research Engineer!5 Overseas on-site representative in the construction of four, 50 KW, research reactors; Tokai-Mura, Japan; Frankfurt, Germany; Berlin, Gennany; and Milano, Italy.
subsequent to the overseas assignments, I was assigned as a member of the Reactor Testing unit of the SNAP experimental reactor group in the successful demonstration of the feasibility of the SNAP II, 50 KW-NAK coolant reactor concept. -
Senior Reactor Construction Engineer:
Senior Site representative (Construction) responsible at project level to coordinate, plan, program and supervise the construction of a 40 MWe Organic Moderated Reactor (OMR) for the city of Piqua, Ohio. The assignment also included the supervision of maintenance, in charge of i
t l
. Time-and Material contract, in completing repairs and 1
., t en; design changes and modifications.
Reactor Construction Engineer:
u As the on-site representative, supervised reactor i
installation and associated components of first sodium cooled nuclear power reactor, Santa Susana, California.
Duties involved direct supervision of construction forces and Eng in the installation and erection of the reactor containment, 'r Re ula reactor vessel and associated components / systems. Duties also included the developnent of installation. and
, t o:,
je ecion b
- c testing procedures.
( am ~~-
Kaiser Engineers and Atkinson & Jones, Richland, Washingtony
- ed 1947-1955:
ic r.
a Assistant Department Engineer - Mechanical i:
.,1
- ne Assigned to the on-site construction project manage.r's g y.
staff in the construction and preoperational testing of five plutonium production reactors at Richland, Washington, jy My duties involved the coordination of all work programs of Enc the field and field engineering staff; direct field design.
i t.r, layouts required to simplify various phases of project con-g n[
struction; and establishment of testing prograns/ procedures g;
and supervision of final systems / component acceptance testng.
- f,
,g g des ec C
I
-he i l'
leli i
'e I
t
.: On i
-.. a n *1 Cr ' ~ '.
I ts D'
t t'
If I
i f
U*illED SlM[$ Of A" ERICA liUCLEAR REGUL A10RY C0.'*15510N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEtiSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 TEXA5 UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Units 1and2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWERS TO CASE'S FIRST AN SETS OF INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 5 AND NRC ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or through d this 10th day of March, 1982:
Mrs. Juanita Ellis***
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- President, CASE Administrative Judge 1426 South Polk Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dallas, TX 75224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' Washington, DC 20555 David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom ***
Environmental Protection Division Administrative Judge P. O. Box 12548, Capital Station Dean, Division of Engineering, Austin, TX 78711 Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University rir. Richard Fouke Stillwater, OK 74074 1668-B Carter Drive Dr. Richard Cole, Administrative Judge
- Arlington, TX 76010 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Debevoise & Liberman Washington, DC 20555 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 J. Marshall Gilmore, Esq.
1060 W. Pipeline Road Hurst, TX 76053 9
- 9 4
a '
Atoaic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Servica Secticn (1)*
Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 N& Ele % caw'{cl Marjorie Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff O
e
.