ML20062K528
| ML20062K528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1982 |
| From: | Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062K526 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208170249 | |
| Download: ML20062K528 (14) | |
Text
_ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _. .
. r ;
L t
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD [
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COliPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
) !
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
) !
APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA f
?
Suffolk County hereby requests the Presiding Officer of I this Licensing Board to issue a subpoena in the form attached [
hereto to Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"). The subpoena .[
directs LILCO to produce no later than August 23, 1982, the j documentsidescribed below for inspection and copying. Issuance f of the subpoena is authorized by 10 C.F.R. S 2.720. l
~
Each of the documents listed in Part A of the subpoena (
was referenced and relied upon by LILCO in its letter SNRC-716, l dated June 21, 1982 ("SNRC-716"), responding to the NBC's j i Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report !
t for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station covering the period i March 1, 1981 through February 28, 1982, and the forwarding i
! I j letter dated May 19, 1982. ;
Each of the documents listed in Part B of the subpoena was l l referenced and relied upon by witnesses, sponsored by LILCO, i
- i l in direct testimony dated June 29, 1982 filed in this case ("LILCO I i :
i i Testimony"). !
8200170249 820813 i PDR ADOCK 05000322 !
G PDR r E _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
P None of the requested documents was submitted by LILCO as exhibits to its letter or to the testimony in which they are referenced. Suffolk County does not have copies of them in its possession. The documents are plainly relevant, and therefore are properly the subject of a subpoena under 10 C.F.R.
~
- /
S 2.720. In order to conduct cross-examination of the LILCO witnesses, it is necessary that Suffolk County have access to these documents upon which LILCO's witnesses have relied.
I By letter of July 26, 1982, Suffolk County requested counsel for LILCO to produce the documents in Part A of the subpoena voluntarily, so that the issuance of a subpoena could be avoided; a response has not yet been received. In view of the length of this delay, Suffolk County has no choice but to file this Application for those documents as well as for the ,
t
- / The fact that Suffolk County may not have requested the [
referenced documents specifically in discovery requests previously filed does not in any way diminish the County's :
entitlement to request a subpoena for them now. See In re Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-461 and 50-462, ALAB-340 (July 29, 1976). 7 L
b
t documents listed in Part B of the subpoena. Delays in obtaining these relevant documents could seriously impair the County's ability to adequately cross-examine LILCO's witnesses. In light of LILCO's unwillingness to produce the documents voluntarily, in a timely fashion, Suffolk County requests that this subpoena Application be ruled upon as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted, L David H. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
=%
Herbert H. Bro /F Lawrence Coe npher Alan Roy Dyn er KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County ,
I August 13, 1982 i
i l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l -
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) -
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM To: Long Island Lighting Company c/o James N. Christman, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Copy also delivered to:
Brian R. McCaffrey Regulatory Supervisor Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old County Road Hicksville, New York You are hereby directed to produce, no later than August 23, 1982, the documents specified below:
PART A Documents referred to in letter SNRC-716 of Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") dated June 21, 1982 (" SNRC-716 " ) .
- 1. All documents describing and/or constituting the review and findings for the six systems that have been reviewed as part of the Shoreham Plant Configuration Review Program, referred to in SNRC-716, p. 2, 12, and if additional systems have been reviewed since SNRC-716 was sent, all documents describing and/or constituting such review (s) and findings.
- 2. All documents describing and/or constituting the results of LILCO's survey of the location of containment isolation valves, referred to in SNRC-716, p. 3, 1 5.
- 3. All documents describing and/or constituting the results of LILCO's operating QA quarterly surveillance review of the Startup Manuals and the monthly review of plant panels, referred to in SNRC-716, p. 5, 1 1.
- 4. All documents which list the 219 open items that have not been closed by the NRC's I&E review, as well as any documents describing the current status of these 219 open items, all as referred to in SNRC-716, p. 5, 1 2.
PART B Documents referred to in testimony of witnesses for LILCO, dated June 29, 1982 ("LILCO Testimony").
- 5. All documents identifying the individuals in the LILCO QA Department, referred to at pages 5 and 6 of the LILCO Testimony, all documents describing the background, experience and qualifications of each such ir.dividual, and all documents describing (
the position, job, duties, and responsibilities of each such individual.
! 6. All documents describing the training given by '
l LILCO to each individual in the QA Department, as referred to at pages 6 and 7 of the LILCO Testimony, and any and all QA training manuals or similar documents prepared or used by LILCO in training QA personnel.
- 7. All documents identifying and/or commenting upon
, " items and services not considered ' safety-related',"
! referred to at page 15 of the LILCO Testimony, and/
l or upon the quality assurance / quality control applic-able to such items and services, and all documents identifying and/or commenting upon "the overall function or purpose to be performed" by each such item or service, as referred to at said page 15.
- 8. All documents showing the results of the following Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation ("SWEC")
l audits: (i) quarterly audits of construction ,
site activities (SWEC Field QC activities and i construction activities), (ii) annual audits .
of site contractors' activities, (iii) annual l audits of ASME III activities, and (iv) annual ,
program audits, all as referred to at page ,
25 of the LILCO Testimony, and not previously provided to Suffolk County.
-9. All documents showing t.te results of Stone and Webster Engineering Assurance Division's: (i) quarterly audits of the Shoreham Project activities, ;
(ii) semi-annual audits of the Site Engineering Office, and (iii) audits of other organizations
- performing engineering services, all as referred to at pages 28 and 29 of the LILCG Testimony, and not pre.viously provided to Suffolk County.
- 10. All of the following documents produced during the i l period General Electric Company ("GE") was pro- [
j curing, designing or fabricating equipment for the l Shoreham project ,
t (i) all documents showing the results of )
internal QA audits conducted by GE NEBO i division-level organizations, referred to at page 30 of the LILCO Testimony, and (ii) all documents showing the results of internal QA audits conducted by NEP & QAO of department !
level GE NEBO organizations, referred to at I said page 30. !
f 11. All monthly reports to LILCO management containing I l " highlights of the QA program," and all quarterly r l reports of LILCO audit programs provided to the !
l Vice Presidents of Engineering and of Nuclear and j responsible department managers, with respect to the t Shoreham project, all as referred to at page 31 of l the LILCO Testimony. j
- 12. All documents identifying and/or commenting upon
" specific items" which have been "promptly brought to the attention of corporate management by the i Quality Assurance Manager," regarding the Shoreham [
project, as referred to at pages 31 to 32 of the LILCO l Testimony. !
I i
l 1
- 13. All documents supporting the contention at page 41 of the LILCO Testimony that "Shoreham's performance is better than other BWR plants," including docu-ments prepared in the review conducted by the LILCO QA Department Manager.
- 14. All documents describing the results, interim and/or final, of the audit by Torrey Pines Technology, referred to at pages 57 to 58'of the LILCO Testimony, including descriptions of the scope of the audit, methodology, reporting, and all internal and other reports, memoranda, and correspondence.
- 15. All documents constituting and/or describing: (i) the "58 potentially significant concerns" reported to Engineering Assurance, as referred to at page 65 of the LILCO Testimony, and (ii) all " Problem Reports" referred to at pages 65 and 66 of the LILCO Testimony, and all documents concerning investigations, corrective action and preventive actions with respect to all such Problem Reports.
- 16. The latest available index in the "up-to-date indexes of design documents" referred to in paragraph (d) at page 88 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 17. All documents constituting and/or describing the
" specific Project procedures" implementing "the design review and overall management direction,"
of LILCO referred to in paragraph (3) at pages 93 to 94 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 18. The LILCO " Corporate Quality Assurance Program" referred to at page 94 of the LILCO Testimony.
l
- 19. The first.and the last available " Notes of Conference" l
of the over 850 project meetings, referred to at
- page 96 of the LILCO Testimony, and every 30th Note j of Conference chronologically issued between the i first and the last.
- 20. All documents describing the " program of ' packaging'"
and the procedures followed in connection with the program, all documents identifying the number and nature of the "overall scoping documents," and, if different, the " Change Control Forms (CCF's)" and the first'and the last and every 20th scoping docu-ments and CCF's chronologically, and the " reviews" of the corresponding CCF's, all as referred to in paragraph (a) at page 101 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 21. The original form of the " Checklist for Design Document Review," referred to in paragraph (3) at page 109 of the LILCO Testimony, all revisions of such form, identified by year of issue, and all documents describing procedures or stating instructions for completing the Checklist. ;
- 22. All documents identifying the "QA personnel who are specifically trained for this task," referred to at page 110 of the LILCO Testimony, all docu-ments describing the background, experience, and qualifications of each of such personnel, and all documents describing the specific training given to each of such personnel.
- 23. All documents showing the results of the 53 audits referred to at page 117 of the LILCO Testimony, !
and not previously provided to Suffolk County.
- 24. All documents showing the results of the 48 audits ;
conducted by NEP & QAO of the design control program applied to the Shoreham plant, as referred to in paragraph (b) at page 120 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 25. All documsnts showing the results of the 39 audits ;
conducted by NREO of the design control program applicable to the Shoreham plant, as referred to in paragraph (d) at page 120 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 26. All documents constituting and/or commenting upon the analysis of the evaluations of results of customer audits over a 5-year period purporting to demonstrate that "there are no uniquely recurring deficiency amam," as referred to at page 121 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 27. All " checklists developed from a comprehensive i survey," as referred to in paragraph a at page 122 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 28. All " Configuration Discrepancy Reports" with respect to the Shoreham plant, as referred to at page 123 .
of the LILCO Testimony.
- 29. All " Plant Configuration Reports" with respect to the Shoreham plant, and all documents constituting ,
and/or containing schedules for the completion of the "SPCR" or progress reports indicating which ;
portions of the SPCR have been completed to date, all ;
as referred to at page 124 of the LILCO Testimony, i i
- 30. All documents constituting and/or containing the
" issued procedures and instructions" referred to at page 127 of the LILCO Testimony, all documents constituting and/or containing any reports, summaries, or minutes.of the " engineering and design meetings" referred to at page 127 of the LILCO Testimony and not previously supplied to Suffolk County, all ;
documents constituting and/or containing the " final stress analysis evaluations" brought before the !
Shoreham Options Review Committee ("SORC"), and all f documents constituting and/or containing any reports, summaries or minutes of SORC meetings, all as referred to at page 127 of the LILCO Testimony. :
l
- 31. All documents constituting, describing and/or commenting upon the " program . . . to assure that by the time of fuel load or shortly thereafter, l the configuration of the plant will be accurately j reflected by drawings," as referred to in paragraph i (c) at page 127 of the LILCO Testimony, and all docu- !
ments constituting and/or containing a schedule for f the completion of the program, and/or progress reporta describing portions of the program which have been completed.
- 32. All documents describing the results, interim and/or :
final, of the independent design review being performed by Teledyne Engineering Services, referred to at page 129 of the LILCO Testimony, including all internal and other reports (other than the i Initial Status Report (TR-5633-2) dated July 9, 1982), [
all Reviewer Report Forms, Request for Information l Forms and responses thereto, Project Manager Resolution ;
Forms, and Internal Committee Resolution Forms (all !
such forms as identified in S 3.8.2 of EP-1-017 of !
Teledyne in said Initial Status Report), and all documents concerning "open items" and their disposition. ;
- 33. All documents supporting the assertion at page 145 l of the LILCO Testimony that "about 250,000 manhours ;
, were expended by SWEC alone in the performance of j procurement quality tasks for Shoreham," including all l calculations utilized, and all documents identifying ;
the items or the class of items of equipment as to l which such time or portion thereof was expended.
- 34. All documents identifying the "eighty QA personnel" i of Courter and Company referred to at page 152 of the j LILCO Testimony, and all documents describing the !
- background, experience and qualifications of each of f j such personnel and describing the position, job, '
duties, and responsibilities of each.
I
_7_
~
- 35. All documents constituting and/or containing schedules of the " Indoctrination Sessions" and of the " Tool Box Sessions" referred to in paragraph c. at page 158 of the LILCO Testimony, and all documents identifying -
and/or describing the number of such sessions, where presented, how long each lasted, and/or the content thereof.
- 36. All documents describing and/or commenting upon the ,
" trends which were established and analyzed in order to maintain the uniform concrete strengths specified,"
as referred to at page 160 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 37. All documents describing and/or commenting upon the
" trends" resulting from the evaluation of N&D's by SWEC, referred to at page 166 of the LILCO Testimony, all documents, describing and/or commenting upon any "significant trends or abnormal quality" determined by an analysis of an independent sampling of N&D's, >
referred to at pages 166 to 167 of the LILCO Testimony, :
and all documents constituting and/or commenting upon the " analysis" which purports to indicate that "the Shoreham N&D's are consistent with other sites' N&D's for similar activities," as referred to at page 167 of the LILCO Testimony. ,
l
- 38. All documents identifying the " thirty-seven audits ,
of site activities" referred to at page 169 of the l
~~
LILCO Testimony, all documents showing the results of such audits not previously provided to Suffolk l County, all documents identifying and/or describing
" attributes" which were "noted as unsatisfactory during these audits," referred to at page 169 of the LILCO Testimony, and all responses by LILCO to i reports noting such unsatisfactory attributes. l l
l 39. All documents identifying, describing and/or con- l
! stituting the "about 725 welding and mechanical sur-veillances and over 450 electrical and instrumenta-tional surveillances" referred to at page 176 of the !
LILCO Testimony, and all documents describing ;
corrective action taken for " discrepant conditions i identified " by such surveillances.
I
- 40. All documents constituting, describing and/or l
! commenting upon all stop work orders issued by LILCO QA personnel, as referred to at page 177 of the LILCO Testimony.
i
?
f I
l
! f I
l i
- - - - - . . _ _ . _ ~ . - , - . . _ . -_ _ _ _
- 41. The three most recent " computerized monthly reports
. . . listing all outstanding E&DCRs that require verification," as referred to at pages 180 to 181 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 42. The three most recent reports issued in connection with the "LILCO/SWEC As-Built Piping Program" referred to at page 181 of the LILCO Testimony, unless already provided to Suffolk County.
- 43. The th.ree most recent reports issued in connection with the " Conduit Qualification and Inspection Program" referred to in paragraph (1) at page 185 of the LILCO Testimony, unless already provided to Suffolk County.
- 44. The three most recent reports issued in connection with the " Conduit Support As-Built Program" referred to in paragraph-(2) at page 185 of the LILCO Testi-mony, unless already provided to Suffolk County.
- 45. The three most recent reports issued in connection with the " Cable Tray Support Analysis Program" referred to in paragraph (3) at page 187 of the LILCO Testimony, unless already provided to Suffolk County.
- 46. The three most recent reports issued in connection with the." Final 'A' Release Program" referred to in paragraph d. at page 188 of the LILCO Testimony, unless already provided to Suffolk County.
- 47. All documents describing or commenting upon when and where the " record storage facilities within the plant will be constructed, located, and secured . . . , "
as referred to at page 214 of the LILCO Testimony.
- 48. All documents constituting and/or containing the analyses of " safety-related non-compliance reports" and all documents constituting or containing the
" trends" resulting from such analyses, all as re-ferred to at page 241 of the LILCO Testimony.
i
/t
~
S * *
- 49. All documents constituting and/or containing the survey of "QA/QC manpower at operating single unit BWR's with comparable commitments to quality activities" as referred to in paragraph 10 at page I 242 of the LILCO Testimony. 1 If you oppose this subpoena, you may move to quash or l modify in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2. 720 (f) .
LAWRENCE J. BRENNER Presiding Judge i
l' August , 1982 ,
I !
6 I
i
[
l I
L F
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL. CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIrs A PamTnammary Inctuoswa A Peornes OwAL Conromarion 1900 M STREET, N. W.
WAE41tINGTON, D. C. 20000 TELZPHONS (SOS) 489-7000 IN FITTSBUMOS CABLE: NIPHI EIEEPATRIG.IAXIMART,JoBNeos 4 MCICHISON TECX eaOMOS HIPN CI 1600 OLEYBE BUILDING w a T.. . I..cr oIA1. ,c ... August 13, 1982 ,,,,,,c,,,,,,,, m ,,,,,,,,,,
202/452-7044 w.) . oo BY TELECOPIER James N. Christman, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re: QA/QC Documents
Dear Mr. Christman:
Attached hereto are copies of an Application for Issuance of Subpoena and a Subpoena Duces Tecum which we are filing today with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on behalf of Suffolk County. As I indicated to you on the telephone yester-day;, I would be happy to work informally with you to arrange ;
a voluntary production of documents by LILCO in an expeditious '
manner, and strike items in the subpoena which are provided by agreement. However, your two and one-half week delay in responding to the informal requests for documents in Mr. Lanpher's letter of July 26 indicates that you are less than anxious to produce documents informally in a timely manner. Under these conditions, it is incumbent upon us to i protect our client from dilitory tactics by using a more formal approach.
In this regard, I must take issue with your letter tele-copied to me today, in which you now say that LILCO is prepared :
to produce "some of the information" requested by Mr. Lanpher, but you fail to identify that information, much less supply it. Surely this response seems more aimed at " persuading" us not to seek a subpoena, than at working in a cooperative manner to expedite the litigation of the QA/QC contentions.
Please be assured that I look forward to working with you on a professional and amicable basis to resolve these issues.
Very truly yours,
=-
Alan Roy ynner ARD/dk ,
Enclosures
IlUN T O N Oc WILLIAM S 707 EAsv MAIN sTr4CET P.o. Box 153G o o e, , gv.tp.. o RICMIOND. V2 norm A 2 0 ele ...,c,....,w.........u6..4 o.o. so. eso a o. eos e.,so pat e a . wantes ca.ot'un **nos ""'**0'0" 0 **'00'* *
.c Lc pw ora c e04-70s-8200 Os2 038 63Fs f or
- a 2 3- . s5 5 0 h497 vs4true, pA.sm ,0wg se
- . rt non sea.
August 13, 1982 occ ~o. 24566.000003
.s 2u ot. ..uc, .. .....
e ..... ..... = .ee,... ...... ... 8 3 6 8 BY TELECOPIER ,
Alan R. Dynner, Esq.
- Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 e
QA/0C Document Recuests
Dear Mr. Dynner:
From our phone conversation ~ yesterday I understand you plan to apply for a subpoena for documents requested in
~
Larry Lanpher's July 26 letter to Taylor Reveley, plus perhaps other documents you feel you need to prepare to litigate the OA/0C contentions. Inasmuch as LILCO is willing to produce some of the information you've. requested, ,
I still think it would be better to proceed informally and try to avoid bothering the licensing board. I understand that you think you need to force matters because of time pressures, but my suspicion is that your filing an application for subpoena and my filing a motion to quash and then the Board's ruling would likely take more time than simply trying to work things out informally. (For one thing, I'm not sure whether the Board members are accessible over the next few days.) You'll have .to do what you think j best, of course, but I think you're starting cut on the wrong foot.
l
.Jeve r th e le s s , I will continue the process of seeing l what documents can reasonably be produced to respond to your i requests and of compiling them. Since you're going to apply for a subpoena in any event, I won't attempt to supply you any documents at least until after I see your application.
Sincercly, l
WY James U. Christman 126/586