ML20079P133
| ML20079P133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | Carr A DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | PALMETTO ALLIANCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303040534 | |
| Download: ML20079P133 (80) | |
Text
.- .
psm en conr.ESPONDENCL Applicanta February 28, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh, 3 pp .3 pH '.21 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD n-
' di,'Ci
+ .
In the Matter of ) :
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. -
) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PALMETTO ALLIANCE'S INTERROGATORIES
- ' AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE REGARDING PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTIONS 6, 7, ,
8, 27 AND 44 Duke Power Company, et al. (" Applicants") herein respond to the February 9, 1983 Memorandum and Order b ! of the Atomic ,
Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") in this proceeding directing that Applicants supplement certain of their responses and objections to Interrogatories filed by Intervenor Palmetto Alliance.
I.
BACKGROUND On September 22, 1982, Applicants filed responses and j objections to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories on Con-tentions 8 and 27.E On October 19, 1982, Applicants filed responses and objections to Palmetto Alliance's 8303040534 830228 DR ADOCK 05000 1/ " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions to Compel Discovery),* February 9, 1983 (" February 9 Order").
2/ " Applicants' Responses to ' Palmetto Alliance Second .
Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce,'"
September 22, 1982. ,,
. __ .. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [/hh _
}. a, - .
On December 31, 1982, Interrogatories on Contention 163/
Applicants filed responses and objections to Palmetto 1/
Alliance's Interrogatories on Co'ntentions 6, 7 and 44.
On January 28, 1983, Palmetto Alliance filed a " Motion to Compel Discovery and Supplement to Motions to Compel Discovery" ("Motien to Compel") in response to the Board's These Memorandum and Order of December 22, 1983.1/
,. var ous mo i tions were subsequently ruled on by the Board in its February 9 Order. In this Order, the Board directed, inter alia, that Applicants supplement their responses to certain Interrogatories on Contentions 6, 7, 8, 27, and 44.5/ These supplemental responses are set forth below.
3/ " Applicants' Responses to ' Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce,'" October 19, 1982, f
" Applicants' Responses to ' Palmetto Alliance First Set 4/ of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce' and l ' Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce' (Regarding Contention 44),"
December 31, 1982.
" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Various Discovery 5/ Disputes)," December 22, 1982, at p. 16.
' d 6/
Palmetto Alliance failed to file, as specifically directe by the Board, particularized responses to Applicants' on objections to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories December 22 Memorandum and Order at Contention 16.Therefore, it has waived any right which it pp. 22-23.
may have had to additional responses from Applicants
-to those Interrogatories.
i '
i t II.
General Interrogatory 4 <
- 1. Palmetto Alliance's General Interrogatory 4 reads as follows:
- 4. Is your position on the contention based upon con-versations, consultati'ons, correspondence or any other type of communications withsone or more individuals?
If so:
- a. Identify by name and address each such individual.
- b. State the educational and professional background of each individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.
- c. Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify
. all other individuals involved.
- d. Describe the information receivpd from such .
individuals and explain how it provides a basis for the issue.
- e. Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation, con-l sultation, correspondence, or other communication with such individual.
Palmetto Alliance alleges that its General Interrogatory l
4 is " identical" to that posed by Applicants "but for the
~
editorial modification necessary to address 'your position on the contention' in place of 'the contention' as originally framed by Applicants." Motion to compel at 4 (emphasis in original). Contrary to Palmetto Alliance's assertion, its recasting of the Interrogatory constitutes substantially Rather, the
! more than a mere " editorial modification."
change in language by Palmetto Alliance completely changes the thrust of the Interrogatory.
Applicants' General Interrogatory 4 is designed to elicit information with respect to the genesis for Intervenor's contentions--in sho.rt,.to pinpoint the specific l .
._v.
4 activities, occurrences, or reports of events which gave rise to Palmetto Alliance's concerns on its various issues.
This is clearly a legitimate area of inquiry.
However, inquiries to an intervening party as to the factual bases for and genesis of concerns underlying its contentions,and inquiries by the intervening party to another party regarding the latter's position on the intervening party's contentions,are clearly distinguishable. The change in phraseology, characterized by Palmetto Alliance as a mere .
" editorial modification" can only be directed to the legal position which Applicants have taken before the Licensing Board on this proceeding on Intervenors' Contentions, or to the manner in which Applicnts have interpreted Palmetto Alliance's Interrogarories and furnished responses thereto.
As Applicants will explain below, under either of these interpretations any conversations, correspondence or other l
type of communciations are privileged, and thus not. subject .
I to discovery.
To expand a bit further, this proceeding now pending before this Licensing Board is not the result of any action It was instigated by Intervenors. The by Applicants.
contentions now admitted to this proceeding and which are the subject of the discovery before this Board were not formulated and filed by Applicants. They were filed by Intervenors. Applicants' " positions" on those contentions were developed in response to the contention; in other words, l
(
they were developed during on-going litigation. Similarly, Applicants did not prepare and file Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and Applicants obviously did not simply 2
develop responses to those Interrogatories out of thin air.
To the contrary, Applicants' " positions" on those Inter-rogatories were developed during on-going litigation. It bears emphasis that the " positions" taken described above, were developed by Applicants' counsel, before, during, and after, discussions with Applicants' technical staff, Therefore, documents which underlie those positions were prepared solely at the direction and under the control, of' counsel. ,
In its February 9 Order, the Board directed Appli, cants to " provide a list of all-communications covered by [ General Interrogatory 4), with particularized justifications where privilege is claimed, except for oral communic tions with counsel." (p. 2) With one exception, all the documents included in this list relate to the positions wh'ich Applicants have taken on the Interrogatories posed by Palmetto Alliance with respect to its own contentions.1I The vast majority are drafts o' responses to Interrogatories, prepared by Applicants' technical staff pursuant.to' explicit direction and control from Applicants' counsel. Before listing these documents--all of which are, in Applicants'. view, privileged--
7/ The one exception is a memorandum from counsel to corporate management with respect to contention 6. ( See p. 16, supra. ,
o
--, , ,-,--n----- ,-,.-n,,,,-,--..-.-.-, -,-,,sn -n, ~ - - - - - . - - , , . , - - - - . - - - - - - _ - . . - . - - - , . . . - - . - _ - . _ - - - - - - - - - - , . - - - - , - -
- y. q Applicants believe that it would be useful to explain the .
~s, precise manner in which they have formulated their responses l
l to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and'therefore how, .
l and under what conditions, these documents sere generated. ,
Upon receiving Interrogatories frem Palmetto Alliance, ,0 Applicants' counsel immediately transmitted them s to members of Applicants' Technical Staff, responsible for
.s ,
s . .
licensing matters,in Duke's Nuclear Production Department,. ,3 x Design Engineering Department, Quality Assurance Department, ,
r l or, in some inst'ances--most particularly with respect to Interrogatories en Palmetto Alliance'n Contention 44--to employees of Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Those individuals would, in turn, alert specific persons ,
-0 within their organizations responsible for. supplying information ,
to be used in responding to specific interrogatories. Following this, Applicants' counsel would confer with the above individuals, either in a series of meetings or in telephone conference calls.
During those meetings and/or conference calls, Applicants'
.s counsel explained to the participating individuals counsel's interpretation of the contention. Each of the Interrogatories
- s. ,
3 was then discussed by counsel and technical staff, and counsel y
~
and staff would discuss how, in light of counsel's interpreta- ,
l tion of the contention, the interrogatory should be answered.
During these conversations, counsel would also indicate the l
Interrogatories, or parts thereof, to which they rainned'to object. On some Interrogatories, counsel would request ircm s
i *.
?- ,
i intent technical: staff a responsive answer notwithstandi g an to cbject, so that a. final determination on the matter could Some of these objections were subsequently be made by counsel.
(See February 9 Order) .
, upheld by the Board; some were not.
Following the above conversations, members of Applicants' technical staff would then prepare initial drafts of responses Some of these drafts were and submit them to counsel.EI submitted directly to counsel; some were submitted to the ious departments (K. S. Canady,
,, licensing personnel in the var
- R. O. Sharpe, or R. W. Ouellette in Nuclear Production; M. L.
Childers in Design Engineering; and Glenn H. Bell and subsequently provided to counsel; in Quality Assurance) and sone were prepared by the licensing personnel themselves Based upon this information, and submitted to counsel.
counsel drafted responses to the individual Interrogatories, These draft responses were
' including objections thereto.
then circulated to the proper individuals on the technical It staff for final review and comment prior to filing.
is important to emphasize that, regardless of who prepared h work the responses and to whom they were submitted, all suc was done under the explicit and continuing direction and a/
During this process, there were conversations between l ding
' s and among members of Applicants' technical staff (inc uH Westinghouse p'ersonrol).
such conversations exist, and no one involved recollects any details of such conversation beyond the f act that I '
e such conversations undoubtedly took place.
P
'e 5
't-,-- .
control of cc ansel, who is engaged in the litigation of these .
contentions in this proceeding.EI
- Applicants submit that each of the documents, identified below, which falls within the scope of this '
Interrogatory is privileged, and, therefore, not subject to discovery.
In the following paragraphs, Applicants will discuss generally the legal privileges which apply to these communications.
Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's
. contentions and on the Interrogatories relating to these contentions, along with the communications among Applicants' legal counsel and between legal counsel and Applicants' staff which underlie Applicants' position on these Interrogatories and contentions, constitute precisely the type of information which the U. S. Supreme Court has held to be protected under the attorney work-product doctrine. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495 (1945) , the Court ruled that "[p] roper prepara-tion of a client's case demands that (a lawyer) assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan I
jbf As noted above, in some instances technical staff, at counsel's direction, provided information on an Inter-rogatory which was not furnished to the Intervenors because all or a part of such Interrogatory was the subject of an objection, generally on the grounds of relevance to the subject matter of the contention. A number of those objections were upheld by the Board.
To require production of these privileged documents now would place Applicants in the anomalous position of having had their objection to providing the information upheld because it is not relevant to the subject of the contention, but being required to disclose the information anyway because the document, prepared under the direction of counsel, and which counsel used to formulate the objection, is somehow not privileged.
l
.-. = _ __ _
his strategy without undue and needless interference." Such preparation, reflected in " interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impres.sions, personal beliefs and countless other tangible and intangible ways," 329 U. S.
at 511-12, is entitled to protection from discovery as the work-product of an attorney. See Consumer Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, NRC (Sept. 9, 1982) slip op. at pp. 34-35. See also Long Island Lighting Campany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP NRC (Sept. 21, 1982), which holds that the " opinion work product" of an attorney (i.e. , 'his mental impressions, icgal theories and opinions, and conclusions) prepared in anticipation of litigation carries an even stronger pre-cumption of nondisclosure than that applicable to his non-epinion " work product" (slip op. at 28-29) .
Applicants recognize that the attorney work-product doctrine (codified in rule 26 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in S 2.740(b) (2) of NRC regulations),
does not confer an absolute privilege from disclosure.
However, "the general policy against invading the privacy of an attorney's course of preparation is so well recognized and so essential to an orderly working of our system of 1sgal procedure that a burden rests on the one who would ,
10/ The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not directly applicable to practice before the NRC. However, judicial interpretations of a Federal Rule can serve as guidance for the' interpretation of a similar or analogous NRC discovery rule. Id. at p. 18; Toledo Edison Co.,
et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, TNM 752, 760 (1975).
invade that privacy to establish adequate reasons to justify production . . . .
" Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. at 512.
Applicants submit that Palmetto Alliance has failed to provide such justification.11'/ -
l l
11/ Applicants further submit that some of the communications, identified herein, between Applicants' technical staff and its counsel regarding responses to Interrogatories on Palmotto Alliance's contentions are protected j by attorney-client privilege. See Upiohn company -
- v. United States, 449 U. S. 383 (1981), wherein the Court. applied the privilege to bar disclosure of (1) responses to questionnaires distributed by corporate in-house counsel to certain employees to determine whether violations of law had oc-curred, and (2) notes taken by counsel during interviews with employees. Emphasizing that the 4 communications at issue had been made by employees to the general counsel, at the direction of corporate supervisors, in order to enable counsel to provide legal advice, the Court ruled that the attorney-client privilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who
- can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice
. . . . The first step in the reso-lution of any legal problem is as-certaining the factual background and sifting through the facts with l an eye to the legally relevant.__/
449 U. S. at 390.
In so ruling, the Court also rejected the " control group" test, which would have extended the attorney-client privilege only to those corporate officers and agents responsible for directing the company's actions in response to legal advice. Id. at 392.
- . . . , . . _ . . . _ . ,..-.,m._ . . . , , , _ _ _ , . _ , _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . , , . , _ , _ , . _ _ . ~ . _ , _ _ - . . . . _ _ , _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - . _ - _ , . . . . _ _ , _ _ . - . _ . . . . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ .
To explain,,the documents listed below clearly constitute trial preparation materials " prepared in anticipation of hearing by or for Applicants' representatives." As such, Palmetto hlliance cannot discover these materials without a showing--which it has not yet even attempted to make--
that it has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of its case and that it cannot without undue hardship obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials without other means.J2/ 10 CFR 2.740 (b) (2) . Moreover, the Board should l be particularly sensitive in ordering disclosure of these documents because, in the form in which they exist, they contain the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Applicants' counsel.
The communications covered by General Interrogatory 4 are listed below.EE/ Protection from disclosure is sought 12/
Inasmuch as the documents and communications as to which Applicants assert privilege are essentially no more than draft responses to Interrogatories, Applicants submit that good reason exists to find that Palmetto Alliance has already received the " substantial equivalent" of these materials. After all, Palmetto Alliance is already in receipt of all the information relevant to the subject matter of its contentions sought in its Interrogatories.
13/ Applicants have, under separate cover, submitted to the Board copies of these documents. Such submittal is made solely to assist the Board in its deliberations, and without waiver of any privilege assertedi or the right to assert any claim of privilege in the future.
Moreover, it should be noted that, with respect to individuals identified in the documents and the listings to follow, the only attorneys are A. V. Carr, Jr. , J.
Michael McGarry, and E. T. Ruff.
c . . . . .
i for each of these documents on the grounds discussed above and reiterated in the individual listing of nacuments.
A. Contention 6
- 1. This undated, handwritten document prepared by Roger W.
Ouellette, containing counsel's handwritten notes, I describes information in Significant Deficiency Reports and lists some 10 CFR S 50.55 (e) reports. This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory' responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on l
Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore
!- protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product i
doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 2. This undated document was prepared by Don B. Blackmon
- and contains draft responses to Interrogatories 1-11.
It was probably prepared around 4/1/82. This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 3. This document, dated 12/17/82 from W. O. Henry, QA Manager for Technical services, to counsel, provides information 6
{
with respect to Interrogatories 3, 14-18, 23-24. This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, ,
contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney l work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 4. This draft of responses, dated 4/29/82, to Interrogatories on Contention 6, prepared by G. W. Grier, Corporate QA .
Manager, and submitted to counsel, contains counsel's handwritten notes. The major part of the information in the attachments was made available to Palmetto Alliance in Applicants' Responses of 12/21/82. This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore .
protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communciation is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
! 4a. Document from G. W. Grier, dated 5/12/82, to counsel supplementing 4/29/82 draft responses listed ini4, above.
This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal 4
r...
. e. . . . .
position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communcation is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
I
- 5. Undated document prepared in late December 1982 by Glenn Bell, transmitting to counsel information to be used in drafting a response to Interrogatory 14. This document, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Falmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product .
doctrine. This communcation is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 6. Handwritten notes by W. O. Henry, dated 4/23/82, reflecting meeting between A. V. Carr, Jr., J. Michael McGarry, D. B. Blackmon, Larry Davison, and G. W. Grier to develop Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories on Contention 6, and to decice on division l of assignments. These documents are therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
l
- 7. Handwritten notes by W. O. Henry, dated 9/16/82, reflecting meeting between A. V. Carr, Jr., G. W. Grier, Glenn Bell, ,
and W. O. Henry, to discuss Applicants' legal position
-~
on Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6, as reflected in A. V. Carr's memo to G. W. Grier of 8/25/82. (See item 12).
. ..u . se ,. - - - _
At this meeting, the development of Applicants' legal position on the Interrogatories was also discussed.
These documents are therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 8. Handwritten notes by Glenn Bell, dated 9/16/82, of meeting between A. V. Carr, Jr., G. W. Grier, W. O. Henry and Glenn Bell, to discuss Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6, as reflected in A. V.
Carr's memo to G. W. Grier of BI25/82. At this meeting, the development of Applicants' legal position on the Interrogatories was also discussed. These documents are therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 9. Undated, handwritten notes indicating actions to be taken in light of 9/16/82 meeting described above.
Author not identified, but prepared by Glenn Bell.
As noted above (Nos. 7 and 8) , at this meeting,. the development of Applicants' legal position on the contention and the Interrogatories was discussed. These documents are therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. -
- 10. Copy of letter from A. V. Carr to K. S. Canady and D. B.
Blackmon, dated 4/21/82, which contains, and has attached, handwritten notes reflecting the meeting of 4/22/82.
v (See No. 6). Notes prepared by Larry Davidson, OA f
Manager-Products. At this meeting, the development of Applicants' legal position on the Interrogatories was i
discussed. These documents are therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 11. Note from C. C. Rolfe, Supervising Design Engineer, to counsel, dated 5/10/82,' transmitting comments on I draft interrogatory responses on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6, 18, 40 and 43. These comments, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed tc the development of Applicants i legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is therefore
- protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 12. Memorandum dated August 25, 1982 from counsel to George W. Gr'ier, Corporate QA Manager, re litigation of QA/QC issues in Cate wha. This memo discusses development of Applicants' legal position on contention 6 and is therefore protected from disclosure by the attorney 5 work-product doctrine. This communcation is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
B. Contention 7
- 1. Draft responses to Interrogatories 6, 7, 16, and 17, together with attachments, prepared by R. W. Ouellette around 12/21/82. Attachments and/or information contained therein, were made available to Palmetto Alliance in Applicants' Responses of 12/31/82. This information, a
- m
- s. . .
~
~. . .
prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided
- to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatori,es, and, therefore, is protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-cleint privilege.
- 2. Earlier drafts, dated 12/15/82 and approximately 4/82 (and containing counsel's handwritten notes), of the proposed responses referenced in No. 1, above.
These documents, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is f
therefore protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication ~is also .
protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 3. 12/16/82 meno to J. Ed Smith, Manager of Oconee Nuclear Station from counsel, regarding discovery in Catawba proceeding,~ requesting information and providing advice re Interrogatory 16. This memorandum discusses Applicants' legal strategy with regard to Palmetto Alliance's Inter-rogatories, and is therefore protected from disclosure by j
the attorney work-product doctrine.
l l
Attachment 1 is an 8/24/82 note from R. W. Ouellette i
transmitting information to be reviewed by J. E. Smith
- pursuant to 7/20/82 conversation with counsel. Attachment 2 is a 9/10/82 response to Attachment 1. The information contained
in these documents, provided to counsel pursuant to counsel's instructions and at counsel's request, contributed to the development of Applicants' lega1 position on Palmetto ,
Allian:e's Interrogatories and is, ,therefore, protected from disc?.osure by the attorney work-product doctrine. The communications are also protected under the attorney-client privilege.
C. Contention 8
- 1. Undated draft responses (prepared mid-September,1982) to Interrogatories 3-10 and 19, prepared by C. W. Graves, Jr., Superintendent of Operations, Catawba Nuclear Station.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses,
! contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, i
i therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected under the attorney-client privilege.
- 2. Draft responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, and 25-34, prepared by J. C. Wolfmeyer, Senior Instructor, Operations, Production Support Department. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product b
...---.,.- - m ....- ,- . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ , _,...r m -m-e- cm ,-w, - - - - . - - - * - - - - - - - . - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - , -------a- "---- ---
doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 3. Draft responses to Interrogatories 1,-2, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-24, and 30-31, prepared by,R. O. Sharpe, Nuclear Engineer, Licensing, Nuclear Production Department.
, This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame inter-rogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 4. Undated and unsigned draft response to Interrogatory 3 (prepared by C. L. Hartzell and C. W. Graves approximately j 2/23/83). This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame inter-rogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected from dis-closure by the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 5. 2/23/83 draft response to Interrogatory 19 transmitted to R. W. Ouellette from M. R. Crews. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on l
.n.. ..-
p... ... ..... v .
Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is,.therefore, j protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine.
3'
- 6. Draft response to Interrogatory 19 prepared by C. L.
Hartzell and C. W. Graves around 2/24/83. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney .-
work-product doctrine.
D. Contention 16
- 1. Handwritten note from counsel to M. L. Childers, dated 11/11/82, transmitting draft responses to Interrogatories 14 and 15. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory l
responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' 1
legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 2. Note dated 10/6/82 to R. W. Ouellette from R. G. Snipes, Systems Engineer of Fuel Cycle Operations, transmitting draft
~
responses to Interrogatories 19, 20, 45, 46 and 92.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses,
....,...,,-_,r_..-_.,_.____._...,, - . _ , _ _ - , _ . , . , ~ , . _ , _ , - , - - , _ _ - - , , . . _ , ,
s... .
-2 1 -
contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 3. 11/16/82 draft letter to K. S. Canady from F. J. Twogood, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, transmitting draft response to Interrogatory 32. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 4. Draft responses to Interrogatories 8, 22, 25, 43, 44, 47, 93 and 121, prepared by R. W. Ouellette in early October, 1982. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's 4 instructions, and to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney l
work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
O. *9 i
.,,.,m., _, --_y-_u___,y,,-,y,_..,y,_,._,-- . . _ - . . _ _ _ . . , . , , , ,,_m,-.,, .m . , _ _ - -_.. . - -.. . - - , , - . . - - -,
. . . . . . . ~ . - -
t .: . .: ..
- 5. Draft responses to Interrogatories prepared by M. L.
Childers, Design Engineering, around early October, 1982.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame responses to Interrogatories, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
~
This communcation is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 6. Letter dated 10/7/82 from M. S. Tuckman, Superintendent of Technical Services, to K. S. Canady, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Services, providing draft interrogatory responses.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, 1
' contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
7- Ten page, undated, handwritten draft responses to Inter-rogatories 1-8, 14-18, 20, 24-30, 32-35, 42, 79, 117, 126, 129-134, 146 and 149. Author not identified but prepared a
l
^- - '
by M. C. Green, and submitted to M. L. Childers.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame inter-rogatory responses, contributed to the, development of l Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from dis-closure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
i
- 8. Eight page, undated, handwritten draft responses to Inter-rogatories 49-55, 57, 59-60, 62-71, 91, 102-105, and 140-144. Author not identified, but prepared by R. Gamberg and submitted to M. L. Childers. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed 9
to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 9. 10/7/82 letter to C. C. Rolfe and R. C. Bucy, Supervising Design Engineer, transmitting draft responses to Inter-rogatories 17, 18, 28, 31, 76, 78, 108, 120, 138, 139, and 151. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory l responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and l 1s, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine.
l
( _- - . ._ - - - - __
4
- 10. Handwritten document dated 10/7/82 from K. L. Ashe to M. L. Childers transmitting draft responses to Inter- !
rogatories 21, 58 and 115. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure under the attorney work-
- product doctrine. .
- 11. Handwritten document dated 10/8/82 from D. L. Wright to Mike Childers transmitting draft responses on Inter-rogatory 10. This information, prepared pursuant to -
counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected.from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine. ,
Contention 27
- 1. Letter dated 9/17/82 from M. L. Birch, Radwaste Engineering, to counsel, transmitting draft responses to Interrogatories on Contention 27. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel ,
to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected
- - - - - - . - - . . _ , . _ - - - - - , _ , . , ~ , , . -n. _ , - - - - - . - , , ,,. - - - - .--.-- - - - . , . , , , - - .
from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine.
This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 2. Draft responses to Interrogatories on Contention .e7, sent from R. W. Ouellette to counsel on 2/22/83.
This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's i
instructions, and provided to counsel to frame inter-rogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected from-disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 3. Draft supplemental responses prepared by counsel around 2/22/83 and transmitted to technical staff for review.
This information contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected by the attorney work-product doctrine.
- 4. Draft response to Interrogatory 13 prepared by M. L. Birch, Radwaste Engineering, around 2/24/83 in response to l
d.ocument 3, above, This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and is, therefore, protected from dis-closure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected under the attorney-client privilege.
l
-2 6 -
Contention 44 l 1. Document from Roy Owoc, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (author not identified), to R. O. Sharpe, dated 11/9/82, transmitting draft responses to Interrogatories. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work- -
product doctrine. This communication is also protected j
by the attorney-client privilege.
- 2. Undated document, prepared between 11/9/82 and 12/2/82 by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (author not identified) t transmitting draft interrogatory responses. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to 4
counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from dis-f
- closure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This i
communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 3. Document dated 12/2/82 from F. J. Twogood,. Westinghouse Manager for Duke Power Projects, to K. 3. Canady, Manager,
- Nuclear Engineering Cervices, transmitting draft inter-i rogatory responses. This information, prepared pursuant to coundil's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame ..
-+,,--r--w,---w--ww-m-w w--9_ ,...r,,_ -, e s, .+w..,w_,9,%--.
- ~
interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Inter-rogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 4. Undated document, prepared prior to 12/31/82 by R. W.
Ouellette (author not identified), transmitting draft Interrogatories. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development of.
Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Inter-rogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
i 5. Draft response to Interrogatory 3 prepared by Roger W.
Ouellette, dated 2/24/83. This information, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory responses, contributed to the development.
of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from dis-closure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- 6. Draft responses to Interrogator'ies 4, 11, 15, 22,'25-35.
Undated and unsigned. (Prepared by Roger Ouellette around 2/22/83.) This informatio,n, prepared pursuant to counsel's instructions, and provided to counsel to frame interrogatory
.-_...-,,,,_---___-,,,-..,_,...._.--_,__.,-m,.
1 l
l responses, contributed to the development of Applicants' legal position on Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, and is, therefore, protected from disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine. This communication is also pro-tected by the attorney-client privi'lege.
III.
Specific Contentions A. Supplemental Responses on Contention 6
- 22. Provide the names, titles, addresses, phone numbers and -
l date of employment for all persons employed at the facility in or responsible for, the Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs. For each such person no longer employed in Quality Assurance / Quality control, indicate the reason for termination. For each such person involuntarily terminated, describe in detail the circumstances of termination.
Pursuant to the Board's February 9 order (pp. 4-5) ,
Applicants will make available to Palmetto Alliance for incpection a complete list of current QA employees at Catawba.
Applicants will also make available a list of those employees of the company who have been employed in the QA Department at Catawba but have transferred to another department within the company.
These lists will include names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers and dates of employment for all such employees.
Applicants will make available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection a complete list of former QA employees at Catawba. This list will include names, titles, date of employment and date of termination of employment for all such formeremp1'hyees. The list will also include the addresses ,
and telephone numbers of such former employees in Applicants' files. However, Applicants have no way of knowing whether those' addresses'and telephone numbers are current. (GHB) i
- 23. Identify in detail all documents, including correspondence, reports, minutes of meetings or notes of oral conversations, reflecting disagreements, disputes or differences of opinion between Quality Control Inspectors and their supervisors or Duke Power Company management. Include the sub3ect, date, names of persons involved and resolution for each instance so reflected.
- 25. Identify any complaints or suggestions by workers known to Duke Power Company regarding substandard workmanship and significant deficiencies in plant design and con-struction or pressure to perform or approve faulty work-manship. Include the date, name, title, address and telephone number of the source, subject and resolution or other action taken for each.
The following documents relate to (1) disagreements, i disputes, or differences of opinion between Quality Assurance Inspectors and their supervisors or Duke Power management within the scope of Interrogatory 23 which have not been resolved as between the supervisor and the inspector, and (2) to complaints or suggestions by workers within the scope of Interrogatory No. 25 known to Duke Power Company management.
l (A) NCI 13627 This NCI Report is dated Marc'h 10, 1982. The Report was written by QA Inspector John M. Rockholt, and reviewed by C. R. Baldwin and R. A. Morgan. This Report involved a piece of stainless steel which was installed so that the appropriate markings could not be seen by the QA Inspector. Because of the particular configuration of the plate as supplied by the vendor, it was installed with the markings on the bottom
aide. The Inspector was informed by Charles R. Baldwin that the requisite approval could be given on a visual basis.
Subsequent examination, analysis, and investigation established that the plate was in fact the proper one.
The inspector believed that he should have seen the markings, and was dissatisfied with the procedure for visual opproval. Following investigation of the incident, the Inspector wrote the NCI to reflect such investigation. The
,Gvaluation and the corrective actions were reviewed by James Mason, T. H. Robertson, and J. C. Shropshire. The Inspector indicated dissatisfaction with aspects of the resolution and the timing of the writing of the NCI. That matter was resolved upon review by R. A. Morgan in an attachment dated March 5, 1982. Final QA review was given by R. G.
Rouse.
(B) NCI 14075 This NCI Report is dated June 7, 1982. The NCI was written by QA Inspector John R. Bryant and was reviewed by A. E. Allum and J. C. Shropshire. The Report involved fit-up inspections for wuld joints in which certain tack walds had not been correctly done. Applicable procedures cuthorized the crafts to remove and repair defective tack welds prior to inspection. The NCI was written because the QA Inspector believed that the craft either was not aware of the procedure or was not checking their work closely ,
snough prior to calling for an inspection. The NCI was resolved'$y noting that applicable procedures exist to
.,.:.----n.,--.~ *.---2
i l
1 provide both craft and QA Inspectors with directions to correct this sort of situation, and by cautioning the craft to check tack welds closely and repair any tack welds prior to calling for an inspection.
I The Inspector disagreed with the resolution because he j did not feel the instructions and procedures should apply to the QA Department. He believed that they should require the craft to repair defective tacks prior to calling for inspection.
. The evaluation,and corrective actions were reviewed and approved by B. F. Sams, T. H. Robertson, H. L. Atkins, and l
J. C. Shropshire. Final QA review was given by R. G. Rouse.
(C) NCI 14137 This NCI Report is dated April 1, 1982. The Report was written by John M. Rockholt, QA Inspector, and reviewed by A. E. Allum and J. C. Shropshire. The Report involved an inspection of three pipe hangers which did not conform to standards. The Inspector called for another Inspector, John Bryant, to confirm the deficiencies, and also requested that his supervisor Beau Ross look at the hangers.
The Inspector states that this was done because he believed the craft might try to change the hangers. The Inspector states that when he later passed the area he observed three craftsmen working on the hangers. He'was told that their l
supervisor, Hershel Brewer, had instructed them to repair the defects. The Inspector states that he believes that this l was done,so that when his supervisor viewed the hangers they 1
1
would be in conformance with standards and that therefore his personal and professional character would be discredited. He stated that he believes these actions show
- 3 disrespect for the QA program. ,
A meeting was held to determine the validity of the ,
t Inspector's concerns. The meeting was attended by John Rockholt , Beau Ross, Hershel Brewer, Bill Rogers and Art Allum. It was concluded that the Inspector had mis- ,
' interpreted Brewer's intentions, which were only to correct **
the problem. The results of this meeting were approved by Arthur Allum, J. C. Shropshire, and R. A. Morgan. The Inspector disagreed with the conclusions reached, maintaining that he did not misinterpret anything; he believed Brewer's intentions were to entrap him.
The evaluation and corrective actions were reviewed by D. H. Llewellyn, T. H. Robertson, and J. C. Shropshire.
(D) Technical Recourse Procedure relating to NCI 14816 The letter of QC recourse is dated August 3, 1982.
It is written by QA Inspector John R. Bryant. It, together with the underlying NCI, involved a situation in which the QA Inspector believed that certain procedures were not sufficiently clear. Upon review of the NCI and the recourse letters, QA management concluded that there was no nonconformance in the l
procedures. The Inspector was informed that he could pursue his concern further if he wished to do so. Aside from the Inspector, the following persons were involved: Arthur Allum, .
J. C. Shropshire, H. L. Atkins, R. D. Blackwelder, Beau Ross, -
l I R. A. Morgan, and L. R. Davidson.
(E) Catawba Welding Inspector Task Force Report In late 1981, QA management became aware of dis-subsequently, satisfaction among Catawba QA Welding Inspectors, in early 1982 a Welding Inspector Task Force consisting of experienced engineers from Quality Ass'urance, Design and Construction,and Production was appointed to investigate the concerns of the welding inspectors. A consultant ,
(Management Analysis Corporation) was also retained to advise and assist the Task Force.
During the investigation, members of the Task Force t
interviewed each welding inspector and received both verbal information from, and documents (diaries) maintained by, the inspectors. Each concern was evaluated by an individual Task Force. member and then separately evaluated by a second member for technical inadequacies. No technical inadequacies were identified. However, it was apparent, as a result of the Task Force investigation, that there had been past instances of misinterpretation and violation of procedures and poor communication.
The results of the Task Force investigation were I compiled into a report which listed Task Force recommendations in three categories: specific, general, and programmatic.
Following issuance of the Task Force Report, each concerned Inspector was separately contacted by at least one member of the Task Force and informed of the findings.
As a result of the Task Force Report, Quality Assurance Management developed a Management Implementation Plan to assure that each specific recommendation was reviewed for l
-m
cetion. Further, each general and programmatic recommendation w s reviewed to determine the relationship of specific c:ncerns to broader no nos. This review pointed up the n ed f,or certain policy, procedure and prog,rammatic changes.
These changes were implemented and incorporated inte the Quality Assurance Program in 1982.
The Task Force Report, consultants' report, and revised procedures constitute several hundred pages. These documents
, ore available for inspection. Additional information sought by these Interrogatories relevant to the Report is contained therein.
(F) 2/19/81 Personnel exit interview for employee Phil Edwards, Welding Inspector. Interviewed by Joe C. Shropshire end H. Dennis Mason. Employee had no specific complaints concerning plant construction, but suggested that better coordination between craft and radiography to avofd over-cxposure of welders would be desirable. Discussed potential incident of exposure stdch he had prevented.
G) 9/24/81 Person.nel exit interview for employee T. O.
Brown, Welding Inspector. Interviewed by R. A. Morgan.
Employee believed that a weld had been quenched because of 1
i
' presence of water in pipe when weld was made. The matter was investigated by QA and construction Technical Support-Welding. It was concluded that due to the location of the water in the pipe, there had been no immediate cooling effect to l .
{
\
'the weld, that any cooling which may have occurred would not have been detrimental, and that the weld was technically sound. Process specifications allow quenching of stainless oteel providing process control is issued to control the l work. Since this was not done, a violation of the process cpecs occurred (which was also investigated by QA/QC) .
I
! However, the work itself would have been acceptable had 1
process control been issued. Because the weld was sound, and all inspections made found it acceptable, the matter
.. ,was considered resolved.
(H) 3/7/B0 Personnel exit interview of employee Marvin D.
l Johnson, Assistant QA Engineer. Interviewed by Joe C.
Shropshire. Employee expressed concerns in several areas.
l These concerns, and the corresponding responses of QA corporate management, are as follows:
(1) Employee alleged that Duke Power Company upper management had not sufficiently evaluated potential problems with nonconforming Youngstown and SWEPCO piping, and that they were not firmly committed to recalling the material if necessary.
l When this was brought to their attention, QA 1
! management reiterated their commitment to evaluate the problems and correct any situations unfavorable
, to a quality installation.-
l (2) Employee alleged that QA Engineering and Services do not provide a sufficiently complete review of Non-Conforming Itams (NCI's) . QA Engineering and Services responded that its existing program did not require the detailed technical review required in the construction division of QA.
~ - _ _ _ _ _
..+..______________ _'___
- ~ .. .. . ..
Employee also complained that QA Engineering and ,
Services provides insufficient help in training QA Inspectors in the mechanical area. Felt they should take more responsibility. QA Engineering and Services responded that this concern had been brought'to management's attention, and that manage-ment was committed to having Engineering and Services provide additional training, f (3) Employee asserted that QA should utilize site QA Engineers to help in vendor surveillance. Said that this would aid vendors by providing expertise and also aid in development of engineers. QA
. responded that this concern had been discussed,
, and that the department's expertise would continue to be utilized in the areas of highest demand.
(I) NCI 13970, dated 2/3/82, prepared by QA Inspector, John Rockholt and reviewed by Arthur Allum and J. C. Shropshire, reports Rockholt's observation of a reduction in the base metal of a weld in excess of 1/16 of an inch. It further states that when C. T. Malone started to show Rockholt the exact area of the weld, at Rockholt's request, he was instructed by C. E. Wood, Welding Foreman to let Rockholt find the weld himself. The Welding Foreman apparently believed that the QA Inspector had been unfairly harsh in inspecting some work.
---,y-,-- - - ----.r , - , - , - - - . - - - - - , , , , , - - . _ . - - - - - - - , - - - . - . , . - - - - - - , - - - , , . - , - - . - . - - - - -
Investigation disclosed that this was an isolated 1
incident, and the welding crew subsequertly indicated that they felt there was a spirit of cooperation between inspectors and welders. (See documents accompanying NCI, including 2/5/82 Memo to File by F. H. Fowler', Employee Relations Supervisor.)
(J) NCI 15341, dated 8/4/82, prepared by J. R. Wilson, Welding General Foreman, and W. H. Brewer, Welding Foreman,
. reports that a welder violated a procedure by passing a hold point, and that this resulted from the QA Inspector i (J. M. Rockholt) having signed off on the hold point on 7/14/82 but later reinspecting and rejecting it on 7/28/82.
(No work was done on the weld in the interim.) The NCI states that while the reinspection did not occur for two weeks, the QA Inspector dated his change of opinion 7/14/82, and implies that the QA Inspector was acting outside of normal procedures and had himself caused the NCI. .
I QA Inspector Rockholt disputed this suggestion. He reported that when he had discovered his initial error in signing off on the weld, he struck through his acceptance and initialed it. Then, he continues, " craft took paperwork andghtarepaircolumnopenedbuttheyweldedonthejoint without getting the Hold Point signed off." The Inspector l
believed that this was a violation of procedure, indicating that an NCI would have to be issued. Rockholt further stated i
l that Mr. Brewer then asked him to sign the skipped hold point. Rockholt replied that that would constitute falsification of documents, refused to sign it, and told Brewer that an NCI l would have to be prepared. Brewer then prepared the NCI, which i Rockholt contends lays the blame for this mixup on Rockholt and intimates that he falsified documents.
(In Brewer's version of this exchange, he asserts that he was attempting to find an acceptable solution to the problem, ,,
. not asking that Rockholt do anything improper.)
l * '
This matter was investigated by J. C. Rogers, Project Manager'.
Additional information is available in the files to show details of resolution.
(K) This item consists of a series of memoranda to the files and affidavits by various individuals involved in an i
incident between QA Welding Inspector Larry Jackson and Powerhouse Mechanic Foreman Ed McKenzie. This incident began on 11/11/81 when Jackson observed from a distance +.
Powerhouse Mechanic Jack Fox grinding on a deleted weld on a stainless steel pipe. Jackson could not see any red marking on the center of the grinding disc. (This is a violation of cpl 70.) He approached Fox, who showed him a l red mark on the disc. .An argument ensued about whether the mark had been on the disc before Jackson approached Fox.
(In fact', the disc had been colored with a marker instead of spray paint. This is not customary.)
.d - --
1 Fox informed his supervisor, McKenzie, of the incident. Jackson also approached McKenzie and told him he was going to prepare an NCI. McKenzie put the disputed disc in his pocket and refused to return it to Jac'kson. Both men became cngry. They then took the dispute to Charles Baldwin, Technician Supervison Welding Inspection. McKenzie admitted that the dise was improperly marked. Jackson asserted that he was harassed by McKenzie's crew. McKenzie apologized and the men shook hands. On the way'home, Jackson said to Fox ('who was in the same van pool) , that if McKenzie had hit him he would have lost his job.
On 11/12/81 Fox informed McKenzie of this conversation.
Later that day (11/12/81) , Jackson asked Fox to point out the pipe ha had been working on the previous day. Fox pointed in the direction of the pipe. Jackson red tagged a pipe, which Fox subsequently realized was the wrong one. When asked by McKenzie why.he had done this, Jackson became upset.
and threatened to red tag the whole area. Harsh words ware exchanged. McKenzie then reported this event to Baldwin and asked Baldwin to move Jackson to a different area. This was done.
Shortly af ter this incident, Jackson filed a complaint I
alleging that he and other inspectors were continually .
harassed' and verbally abused by both craftsmen and foremen, cnd that McKenzie was a constant problem for all inspectors.
An investigation was initiated by Employee Relations.
V . .
analysis area in the Catawba support / Restraint Group, indicating that she felt uneasy about the engineering judg-ment and experience required in nuclear design work. Employee had decided to return to college for.another degree. .,
When the employee's squad leader had repor'ted her concerns to her supervisor on 11/22/82, he discussed them with her that same day. It was R. M. Dulin's impression that the employee's concerns were characteristic of an inexperienced engineer, and that she would gain confidence as she continued to work. R. M. Dulin also reminded the employee of the safe- ,
guards built into the design process to preclude compromises of safety, including the checking process, supervisory re-views, and conservative assumptions used in the entire design, construction and operation process. The employee subsequently indicated that this discussion had relieved some of her concerns.
0M) 9/4/80 Personnel exit interview for employee Nolan Hoopingarner. Interviewed by D. L. Powell, Employee Relations Supervisor. Mr. Hoopingarner felt that he was being discharged as a result of his complaints to OSHA and NRC about safety hazards at the Catawba site.
His specific concerns (set forth in a list dated 3/10/80
- attached to the exit interview) included the need for greater supervision of scaffold building crews, the need for more building material, the need for improved com-g 6
- e
- , . - , , - - - - ,..,._w-.,, , , , , , - ,yr , , _ , , . . . . . , _ . - _ _ .
_-_v.. _ , . __y- ,_
. ,,-,,-,,y .,,,.,.c . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ , . - - , ~ -wm ----
munication between crews and supervisors and between individuals, improper construction of scaffolds, the need for more cooperation between the crafts on scaffold construction, and " safety" (not explored :further on this document). Hoopingarner also felt that NRC and OSHA had not investigated properly, and that the local news media had ignored his allegations.
After reviewing the basis for Hoopingarner's discharge, the Duke Power Company Employee Relations Department .
determined that he had been released because of unexcused absences from work. Duke also satisfied itself that all of Mr. Hoopingarner's concerns with respect to safety had been addressed, and were without merit.
Additional information on Mr. Hoopingarner's concerns and the actions taken in response to these concerns is available in Applicants' files.
(N) 6/03/80 Personnel exit interview for employee Teresa .
L. Hughes, file clerk in the Mechanical-Nuclear division of the Design Engineering Department. The employee expressed generalized concerns about alleged carelessness in following I procedures regarding sign-offs and revisions on drawings.
The employee also believed that her immediate supervisor should have been more responsive when told of employee's conce,rns. This situation was subsequently discussed with J. L. Elliott, Principal Engineer, Safety Analysis and
.-r-,--- - - -,,--...--.~,m. -,,---.,,.~.,,n----m. - ~ - ~ - - ,
3 ... ,
Licensing. It was agreed that the employee's supervisor chould have made a greater effort to discuss and resolve the employee's concerns. Mr. Elliott indicated that he was working on this supervisory problem.
As noted above (see p. 29), these are' concerns which, so far as QA Personnel are concerned, have been
( taken beyond an individual Inspector and his first-line supervisor. It is believed that any questions, other than those reflected in the documents above, which have arisen between an inspector and his or her first-line supervisor have been satisfactorily resolved between those individuals.
Similarly, exit interviews for Design Engineering and Construction employees have been identified and provided.
However, first-line supervisors have not been consulted.
Applicants are not aware of any disagreements which exist on those levels at this time.
(GHB; DA; MLC) l l
l t
m.
_44_ .
B. Supplemental Responses on Contention 7
- 16. Have any Duke Power Company employees or contractor or subcontractor employees been warned, counseled, disciplined, transferred, demoted, penalized, suspended or terminated as a result of nonccmpliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures, rules or regulations at any licensed facility or for actions under any NRC license? Identify the name, title, dates of employment, address and telephone number of each such employee; describe in detail the action taken, the reason for each such l, action, the procedures, rules or regulations not complied with, and the safety significance of such noncompliance.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, Applicants have prepared an affidavit of nondisclosure to be executed by counsel for Palmetto Alliance and one other person. That affidavit has been furnished to the Board and Palmetto Alliance under separate cover.
I l
i 17. Has Duke Power Company been the subject of requests for action, notices of proposed action, notices of violation, notices of proposed imposition of civil penalties, orders to show cause, proceedings to.
modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to impose civil penalties pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, any other provisions of AEC or NRC statutes or regulations, or any civil or criminal proceeding in the courts of the United States or any State, before any agency of the United States or any State j
with respect to activities under AEC/NRC license?
l Describe in detail each such instance, the violation or claim alleged, its date and place, the Duke Power Company response including any evidence offered in answer, remission or mitigation, the proceedings had thereon and the outcome. .
As set'out in their December 31, 1982 Response (at pp. 60-63),
Applicants on that date agreed to make the relevant documents respons'ive to this Interrogatory available for inspection by Palmetto Alliance.
_. . . . . . . . . . ... ,o . . _ . _ _ .
y .. ... .
l 1
C. Supplan. ental Responses on Contention 8
- 2. Identify any and all communications with the NRC on the Include any'and all subject of operator qualifications.
communications with NRC on the subject of operator qualifications at all other nuclear facilities operated by the applicant as well as Catawba.
- 1. FSAR for Oconee Nuclear Station, Section 12.1.3
- 2. SER for Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1
- 3. SER for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3
- 4. FSAR for McGuire Nuclear Station, Section 13.1.3
- 5. SER for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
. 7. Presentation to the NRC by Mr. Hal B. Tucker, Manager, Nuclear Division, Duke Power Company, June 10, 1982
- 8. Transcript of public briefing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Reactor Operator Qualifications, September 16, 1981 (pp.1-68) , covering presentations made by Duke Power Company employees E. L. Thomas, Hal B. Tucker and E. P. Wilkinson. ,,
- 9. 12/5/80 letter from W. O. Parker, Jr. (Duke Power Company, Vice President, Steam Production) to the Secretary of the NRC, transmitting comments on Revision 2 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.8.
- 10. 3/26/82 letter fromIW. O. Parker, Jr. to Harold R.
Denton,. NRC/NRR, concerning reactor operator qualification and training (RWO) g #9 e
,p., . . - -.. , y- _- , . .., , - - - - -- , _ _ _ ., , .
. i l
l l
1
- 3. Describe in detail the criteria used in selecting all control room personnel including but not limited to criteria concerning education, work experience, specialized training, physical and mental health, and personal characteristics. List the criteria for each person.
In accordance with the Board's Order, this Response is f
limited to control room personnel that actually operate the reactor.
Criteria used to select operators:
I. Pre-employment A. Validated Testing Program B. Personal Interviews C. Background Investigations
- 1) Education - high school diploma or college transcript
- 2) Verification of employment - past 3 years
- 3) References - personal .
- 4) Criminal Conviction Record - previous 3 years D. Physical Examinations E. Psychological Testing
- 1) Thurstone Temperament Test
- 2) Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MHPI) - if low scores on Thurstone e II. Prior to Promotion to Reactor Operator A. Pass the NRC Reactor Operator examination B.,, ,,NRC license physical examination
C. Supervisory recommendation D. Satisfactory job performance E. No aberrant behavior noted on the job supervisory i evaluation F. Seniority is considered but is not an overriding factor G. Observation training at an operating station (if licensed prior to operation)
H. Participation in pre-operational testing (if licensed ,
prior to operation) (CLH; CWG)
- 11. In your FSAR 12.1.3 (0) you state:
" Operators, whether or not they are to be licensed by the NRC, should have a high school diploma, or equivalent, and should possess a high degree of manual dexterity and mature judgment."
- b. What is your understanding of "a high degree of manual dexterity"? Describe in detail methods used to determine if a person has such dexterity.
f I
A "high degree of manual dexterity" would be defined as good physical coordination of body part movements, b
e
' ^^ '""-
- , , - - - . - _ . ,,..__v_ _ - . . _ _ - - _ _ _ , , , , , . . . . - _ . , _ _ . , _ . . . _ , - . - - -
in particular, skill and ease in using the hands. Several methods are used to determine if candidate operators have this physical trait.
3:
- 1. Operators prior to selection receivg a complete physical.
This examination includes a check of manual dexterity.
- 2. During simulator training candidate operators are evaluated on their ability to manipulate controle in emergency situations.
- 3. During qualification at Catawba, operator candidates are evaluated on their ability to respond physically to the demands of individual job tasks.
- 4. Once qualified, operators receive yearly physicals to ensure their manual dexterity has not deteriorated.
- c. What is your understanding of " mature judgment"?
Describe in detail the methods used and factors considered in determining if an applicant has
" mature judgment."
Mature judgment refers to an individual's full development of the ability to form an opinion, or conduct an evaluation by discerning and comparing information.
Methods used to measure a candidate operator's maturity of judgment include:
Factors I 1. Basic background checks prior to employment.
considered include previous work history, educational development, and other data indicating maturity of judgment..
- 2. Testing prior to employment. Operator candidates are required to demonstrate the ability to evaluate problems in several required skill areas and draw correct conclusions.
- 3. Evaluation during training to become operators.
Instructor evaluations, skill testing, and supervisor observations are used to help determine candidate operator judgment.
- 4. Continuing evaluations of job performance are carred out after operators are qualified. Factors looked at include task maturity (the competency an individual shows in performing a job), and behavorial maturity (the degree of supervision an individual requires in order to have them carry out a job). (CLH; CWG)
- 16. Identify all control room personnel by name, position, educational level, experience and specialized training.
If experience and/or training includes experience at other commercial or government reactors and/or simulators,
- r. identify the manufacturers, manufacturer's number, design model of each reactor and/or simulator. Describe in detail the differences from each of these reactors or; simulators to the facility at Catawba. Particularly describe in detail the differences in operating navy reactors and the Catawba reactor.
As noted in Applicants' earlier responses (September 22 Responses at p. 18), the resumes of persons to be licensed as senior reactor operators and reactor operators were made available for inspection. In addition, a number of those resumes
, - . _ - . - .,,g- . - - , -
f are now contained in Section 13.1 (Table 13.1.3-1) of the FSAR.
In instances where a senior' reactor operator or reactor operator has had experience at other reactors, such reactors i are listed on the resume. A key will be provided to identify those reactors by manufacturer and model.
(
! The Catawba reactors and the Naval reactors are similar in that they are both pressurized water reactors with forced primary flow required for full power operation.
,. Reactivity control is accomplished with movable absorber .
assemblies. Shell and tube heat exchangers are used for steam generation. The operating procedures, basis for trips; reactor theory, and control system criteria are similar.
Operations of both types of reactors must conform to regulatory requirements.
-- However, as might be expected, since they are designed to provide strategic propulsion rather than commercial ,
~
electric power, Naval reactors are considerably smaller and their systems are less complex. Perhaps the primary difference between the two types is the manner in which they are operated. The Naval reactors are operated, and designed to be operated, with emphasis on the ability to handle l
rapid accelerations and deceleratioss. Large comercial reactors, such as Catawba, are on the other hand operated, and designed to be operated, primarily at steady-state high binter levels. .
ba.c.. - .
Detailed descriptions of the differences in operation of these units would require a comparison of no less than seven Naval propulsion plants to the Catawba reactors.
Moreover, such a comparison would require revealing-classified information. Such information is classified as " Confidential--NOFORN," and its. dissemination could subject the person revealing it to possible criminal sanctions.
In any event, Applicants do not believe such information is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding. To explain, though Duke will give some credit to an operator applicant for U. S. Navy reactor experience, such credit goes only to certain basic courses dealing with the theory of nuclear reactors; it does not go to the actual training 4
time required either on the simulator or the Catawba reactor. More specifically, if due to'an employee's prior experience, either in military service or other nuclear power plant background, he or she is able.to. pass a comprehensive by-pass examination based on crmmerical' l
power plant theory and technology, the applicant may be exempted from the 11-week Nuclear Preparatory and/or 8-week Nuclear Fundamentals blocks of training. In addition, the applicant would be exempted from two of the normally-required four weeks of observation training for Cold License certification. These are the only exemptions granted.
No other observation or simulator operation time is exempted based on prior m'ilitary rescu4r experience.
In short, the fact that an applicant may have prior military l
reactor experience does not excuse that individual from any of the " hands-on" training included in Duke's operator training program to Prepare applicants for an NRC license as a reactor operator or" senior reactor operator.
(CLH;.CWG; JCW)
- 19. Have control room personnel. been involved in the planning of control room design and procedures?
If so, explain in detail each person's. participation.
Control room personnel were not involved in the planning of control room design. However, a Control Room Design Review (CRDR) is currently in progress. This review is under the direction of a Review Team which includes a
- Catawba Reactor Operator. The Review Team has been responsible for writing a review plan, and working with Human Factors consultants in the concept and implementa-tion of review activities. The Review Team will also be responsible for the assessment of any identified human factors concerns and for the development of any necessary l
enhancements.
In addition, the Catawba Reactor Operators are primary l
l participants in the Task Analysis activity of the CRDR.
In this activity, operator tasks during emergency procedures t
are delineated, controls and displays required to support these tasks are identified, and an analysis of the human engineering suitability of the required controls and displays to suppbrt the effective accomplishment of operator tasks is performed. j l
As to Control Room Procedures, there has been substantial involvement by control Room personnel. All operating procedures to be used at Catawba are being developed by Catawba Nuclear Station Operations. Procedures are devrloped by operating engineers, operatlons department supervisors, cold-certified Control Room operators, in-training control room operators, and nuclear equipment operators working individually and in teams. This procedure development activity is supervised by NRC-licensed personnel who hold, or have held, reactor operator licenses.
or are cold-certified. Technical support for procedure development is provided by Design Engineering, Nuclear Production, General Office, and Westinghouse Electric personnel. While all the above-listed operations department the personnel have been involved in Procedure Development, l
major contributors are listed in FSAR Table 13.1.3-1.
(CLH; CWG) l
- 35. Provide the test results for all control room personnel.
As Applicants have noted in their Response to Interrogatory 34 (see September 22 Responses at p. 24),
numerous tests are given to reactor operator applicants.
l l
s.*
t l
To date (February 25, 1983), the major training module completed by reactor operator applicants is cold certification training. Completion of this training, along with other prerequisites, allows a candidate reactor operator to sit for the NRC-administered cold license examination. There are 11 individual tests of instructional progress included i
- in this module. The final comprehensive cold certification test is administered by another utility and these scores are herein provided.
To make matters more clear, no Catawba reactor operator
- or senior reactor operator has yet been licensed by the NRC on the Catawba facility, nor has any such individual yet taken the examination on the Catawba facility. An additional training module to prepare applicant reactor J
operators and applicant senior reactor operators is now con-vening (March 7, 1983). This module will provide Catawba specific instruction and reinforce previous training received in the cold certification module. At the end of this phase of training (approximately February 1984) , successful candidates will be allowed to apply for NRC reactor operator and senior r
reactor operator licensing. The NRC-administered examination l
will include both a written test and a comprehensive oral examination conducted in that order.
(. s . .
REACTOR OPERATOR OR 1
GRADE SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR OPERATOR 96 Senior Reactor operator A
87 .
Senior Reactor Operator 3
87 Senior Reactor Operator C
85.9 Senior Reactor Operator D
Senior Reactor operator E 92 94.4 Senior Reactor operator
- y 89.3 Senior Reactor operator G .
Senior Reactor Operator
( 81 B .
90 Senior Raactor Operator I
79 Senior Reactor Operator J
85 Senior Raaetor operator K
79 Senior Reactor Operator L
84 Senior Raaetor Operator M
- 82 Senior Reactor Operator N
74 Senior Reactor Operator 0
79 Senior Ranctor Operator P
82 Senior Rasetor Operator Q
92 Senior Reactor Operator R
82.7 Senior Reactor Operator S
88.8 Senior Reactor Operator T
92.5 Senior Reactor operator U .
93.3 Senior Reactor Operator l
V 84.8 Senior Reactor Operator .
w l
92.4 Senior Rasetor Operator X
ERACTOR OPERATOR OR OPERATOR M SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR Y 88.5 Senior Raaetor operator Z 83 Raaetor Operator AA 90 Reactor Operator RB 89 Reactor Operator .
CC 83 Basetor Operator DD 88 Reactor Operator RE . 84.9 Raaetor Operator TF 80 Reactor Operator GG 90 Raaetor Operator f
EH 79 Raaetor Operator .
II 89.3 Reactor operator JJ 71.8 Reactor Operator IK 81.6 Raaetor Operator LL 86.6 Raaetor Operator MM 87.8 Raaetor Operator 85.5 Reactor Operator NN i
81.4 Reactor Operator 00 FP 86.8 Raaetor Operator ,
l 89.7 Reactor Operator QQ ,
ER 90.2 Raaetor Operator 83 Reactor Operator SS 91.6 Reactor Operator TI 80.4 Reactor Operator UU 80 Reactor Operator v7 82.9 Reactor operator W
gg "
91.1 Reactor Operator TT '- - 89 senior Reactor operator (CLH; CWG; JCW)
1 D. Supplemental Responses on Contention 27
- 4. Are there any other methods available for meeting the standards and requirements above? Identify all other methods. e 8
The components of an acceptable system are described in section H, " Emergency Facilities and Equipment" of NURIG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, and additional regulatory ,
guidance is provided by Regulatory Guide 1.97. Such regulatory guidance is provided to assist licensees in achiev-ing compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (b) (9) .
In Applicants' view, its system to measure offsite dose rates during emergency conditions, which consists, among other things, of a combination of TLDs and offsite monitoring teams 1
cquipped with real time monitors (see Responses dated 9/22/82 to Palmetto Alliance Interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 9 and 20), is .
the only acceptable method of meeting the NRC's regulatory i guidance as reflected in the above documents. (MLB)
- 7. Describe in detail the process followed in selecting the components of the offsite radiological monitoring system to be installed at Catawba. Identify in your response all manufacturers consulted, models of components con-sidered, costs of such components, capabilities of such components, studies, documents, oral communications and testimony used in the process of selecting this system. ,
l l -
\
The selection of componants of the offsite monitoring system was made for the following reasons:
(a) Environmental TLDs were chosen for compatibility with existing personnel and nonemergency environmental monitoring equipment.
(b) Survey instruments (real-time monitors) were celected for compatibility with survey instruments used routinely by health physics personnel in the station.
. (c) Radiciodine detection devices (Eberline SAM II's) for field use were selected because they were the only instruments available at the time to detect radiciodine in the presence of the radionuclides. However, the Eberline SAM II's will not be used. Instead, sodium iodine detectors, cuch as the Nuclear Data ND6, will be used. See Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 13. (MLB)
- 8. Specify your reasons for rejecting other components considered Compatibility and standardization (see Response to Interrogatory 7, above) were the only reasons for rejecting other components. There are no major differences between the TLDs and survey instruments (real-time monitors) provided ,
by the various vendors. (MLB)
- 10. Identify any and all communications with the NRC on the subject of offsite radiological monitoring systems.
Include communications about the offsite radiological l
monitoring systems at other nuclear plants operated by l
Duke in addition to those concerning Catawba.
l l
The following list identifies communications with the NRC, on the Oconee and McGuire dockets, regarding the ability of Duke Power Company's offsite monitoring systems .,
to measure offsite dose rates during emergency conditions:
Duke Power Company Crisis Management Plan Duke Power Company Crisis Management Plan Implementing Procedures; Procedures 5.3.14 and 5.3.15 Oconee Emergency Plan (Rev. 7)
Oconee FSAR Sections 11.5 and 12.4.5 Oconee Unit 1 Safety Evaluation Report, December 29, 1970
, Oconee Units 2 and 3 Safety Evaluation Report, July 6, 1973 Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station Emergency Plan ,*
Implementing Procedures; Procedure CP/0/B/4003/01 McGuire Emergency Plan (Rev. 9)
McGuire FSAR Section 12.3.2.4 McGuire Units 1 and 2 Safety Evaluation Report, July 6, 1973
- Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures; Section 18.2 (RWO)
- 11. Describe in detail the offsite radiological monitoring systems in use at all other nuclear facilities operated by the applicants. Explain any differences between the systems at all other facilities and the system to be **
installed at Catawba.
See Reponse to Interrogatory 10.
There are no substantive differen~ces between Duke's systems for oconee and McGuire for measurement of offsite dose rates in emergency conditions and those to be used at Catawba. For each of these plants, as well as Catawba,
'~ .
-- ..n.-. _ _ . _ . .
s.;.: . . . .
such system consists of fixed TLDs and offsite monitoring teams equipped with real-time monitors. (MLB)
- 12. Describe in detail any NRC evaluations and the results of such evaluations of the offsite radiological monitoring systems at all other nuclear facilities operated by the applicant. Identify all documents, studies, oral communications and testimony relating to such evaluations.
See Response to Interrogatory 10. In Applicants' view,
.any such inquiry is better directed t'o the NRC Staffg .-
and in fact the Staff has responded to this Interrogatory.
See, NRC Staff Responses to Palmetto Alliance Second Set of Interrogatories at p. 26. (RWO)
- 13. What has been the experience with the offsite radiological monitoring systems at all other Duke facilities? Discuss in detail any problems associated with those systems.
Experience with offsite monitoring systems at Oconee and McGuire for measurements of offsite dose rates in emergency conditions has been generally good, with the exception of use of the radioiodine detection devices (Eberline SAM II's). Calibration of these instruments shifted significantly during use, making the results unreliable unless frequent calibration checks were performed.
These devices have been replaced at Oconee, and McGuire is in the process of replacing them, with a portable multi-channel analyzer with a sodium iodine detector, such as the
Nuclear Data ND6. Catawba will also use the Nuclear Data ND6, instead of the Eberline SAM II's. See Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 7. (MLB)
- 23. Identify all real-time monitors now available. Describe in detail the detection capabilities, method of transmission, components, meteorological measurement accessories and cost of each.
Specific information on field monitoring instruments (including real-time monitors) is available from the following vsndors: ,
Applied Physical Technology, Inc.
Eberline Instrument Corporation EG&G Ortec, Inc.
General Atomic Company The Harshaw Chemical Company .
Kaman Sciences Corporation Kimmel, Inc.
~
Nuclear Measurements Corporation Par Systems Radiation Management Corporation Reuter-Stokes, Inc.
Technology for Energy Corporation Teledyne Isotopes Victoreen Instrument Company Westinghouse Instrument Di71sion ,
A summary of systems and their characteristics are pro-(MLB) vided in AIF/NESP-023 and NUREG/CR-2644.
- 24. Identify any problems associated with any of the monitors identified above.
Problems with these instruments are -identified in AIF/NESP-023 and NUREG/CR-2644. (MLB)
62-E. Supplemental Responses on Contention 44
- 2. Identify all studies, documents, technical reports, testimony and oral communications as well as com-munication with the NRC on the subject of Oconee reactor embrittlement. -
S The documents covered by this Interrogatory are as follows:
January 1982 Duke Power Company report: Duke Power Company, Oconee Nuclear Station, Reactor Vessel Pressurized Thermal Shock Evaluation February 3, 1983 H. B. Tucker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR February 2, 1983 John F. Stolz, NRC/NRR letter to H. B. Tucker December 23, 1982 H. B. Tucker letter,to N. J. Palladino, NRC December 9, 1982 H. B. Tucker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR
- November 12, 1982 H. B. Tucker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR October 1, 1982 John F. Stolz letter to H. B. Tucker June 21, 1982 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR April 30, 1982 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR j
March 31, 1982 G. S. Vissing, NRC/OIE letter to Duke Power Co.
March 23, 1982 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR January 15, 1982 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR December 2, 1981 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR October 20, 1981 A. C. Thies letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR l
I August 21, 1981 D. G. Eisenhut, NRC/NRR letter to W. O. Parker May 22, 1981 W. O. Parker letter to H. R. Denton, NRC/NRR April 20, 1981 D. G. Eisenhut, NRC/NRR letter to "All Licensees of PWR Nuclear Power Plants" (General Letter 81-19)
- 3. Explain in detail why you think overcooling transients and embrittlement problems that have occurred at Oconee )
will not occur at Catawba.
l There has been no overcooling tranWient at Oconee of the sort contemplated in Contention 44.
With respect to the embrittlement concern, neutron irradiation produces embrittlement which reduces the fracture toughness of the reactor vessel steels. The copper content of the reactor vessel steel has been ,
identified as a major contributor to radiation embrittlement.
The material characteristic used to describe the ability of a material to prevent brittle failure is the materials-reference temperature, RTNDT (described in Section III of the ASME Code). As a material accumulates neutron irradiation damage to its RTNDT is increased. Essentially, such rate of increase is directly reinted to the amount of copper in the particular material.
! Older plants have a relatively high copper content (typically 0.25 to 0.35%), while newer plants, such as l
l Catawba, have a lower copper content. More specifically, as shown in FSAR Tables 5.3.1-4 and 5.3.1-5, the limiting material in the reactor vessel beltline region has an RTNDT value of 52'F for the Unit 1 vessel and 15'F for the Unit 2 vessel. TheEnd-of-Life $RTNDT alculated for the Unit 1 vessel is 58'F and for the Unit 2 vessel is 94*F.
Thus,,.the End-of-Life RTNDT or e nit 1 vessel is 110*F O
- ------ , , . . , _ _ _,._ ,, __ _ N-*"--""T&=-w-,,.., , , _ _ _ _ _
s and is 109'F for the Unit 2 vessel. On page 7 of SECY 82-465 (dated 11/23/82) the NRC Staff proposed to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock. The proposed rule would pstablish an RTNDT screening criterion of 270*F for axial welds and 300*F for circumferential welds. Action would have to be taken by licensees if it was determined that the RTNDT va ues for their reactor vessels would approach or exceed this screening criterion during the life of the plant. The RTNDT va ues for both of the Catawba reactor vessels will not approach 4
this screening criterion during the life of the plant. (RWO; CWH)
- 4. Have you conferred with the owners of the H. B. Robinson plant on embrittlement problems?
- a. If so, identify and describe in detail all such communications.
- b. If not, why have you not done so since Combustion Engineering manufactured the reactor vessel to be used at Catawba 2 and the one in use at .the Robinson facility? Explain in detail.
l Applicants have not conferred with the owners of the Robinson plant on embrittlement problems. The reactor vessel for the Robinson plant was constructed well before the reactor vessel for Catawba's Unit 2. During the interim l
l between the construction of these two vessels, the effects of copper content on possible reactor vessel embrittlement were recognized. Accordingly, when the Catawba Unit 2 vessel I
R . . . . . . ,
was constructed greater emphasis was placed on controlling the copper content. It is therefore not anticipated that embrittlement problems such as those experienced at the Robinson plant will occur at Catawba. (See Supplemental Response to Interrogatory 3). (RWO) l 11. Describe in detail all action taken by the Applicant in response to early reactor embrittlement problems at other facilities. Include any and all changes in design, emergency and routine operating procedures, as well as any other action taken at Catawba to prevent such problems.
The documents made available in response to Interrogatory 2 will describe actions taken by Duke Power Company with respect to Oconee. In addition, operating procedures have been written for Oconee and McGuire.
The June 22, 1982 Westinghouse Report entitled " Review of Emergency Response Guidelines Relative to Pressurized ,
Thermal Shock," which has been made available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection and copying in accordance with Applicants' December 31, 1982 Interrogatory Responses on Contention 44 (see p. 63), discusses the issue of operating instructions and operator training for prevention and mitigation of potential overcooling and overpressurization transients.
In addition, as Applicants indicated in their original Responses to Interrogatories 7 and 11, Duke is addressing the matter of overcooling and overpressurization transients in its reactor operator training program. The lesson outline for such part of the program is:
_ ., .m,.._ , . , ._. ,,
Introduction and Background Mechanical Properties of Metals and Terminology Failure Modes of Reactor Vessel Material l
Pressure Vessel Pressure Temperature Limits Pressurize'l Thermal Shock .
I Key Parameters Events Which Can Produce Pressu'rized Thermal Shock Conditions 8 History of Pressurized Thermal Shock Events Minimizing Pressurized Thermal Shock ,
Procedural Consideratiens Dealing With Limiting Pressurized Thermal Shock Finally, as indicated in Applicants' original Responses, Duke is in the process of developing emergency procedures concerning the appropriate response'to an imminent pressurized i thermal shock condition and to an anticipated pressurized thermal shock condition. (RWO)
- 15. Provide the results of all ultrasonic, penetrant, and magnetic particle examinations.
The requested information will be made available for inspection.
The following tables show the location of, and the quantity of documentation for, each reactor vessel.
l TELE I OCONEE 1, 2 & 3 1
l TEST DOCUMENT LOCATION l
u.
- 1) Fabrication Weld Exa- QA Document Package mination Ultrasonic. (2 file cabinet drawers) QA Vault (Cherokee)
Penetrant and Magnetic i
l Particle.
- 2) Preservice Examina- Preservice Examination tion UT only Reports (5 volumes / Unit)* QA DPC EC 1273
- 3) Inservice Inspection Inservice Inspection (ISI). UP only Reports (5 volumes / Unit) QA DPC EC 1273 ,
TABLE II McGUIRE 1 & 2 TEST DOCUMENT LOCATION Fabrication Weld Exa- QA Document Package Westinghouse Elec.
- 1) Corp. Pittsburgh PA.
mination (ultrasonic, penetrant and magnetic particle)
- 2) Preservice examination Preservice Examination QA DPC Unit 1 UT only Reports. EC 1273, Unit 2 documentation not issued by B&W TABLE III CATAWBA 1 & 2 DOCUMENT LOCATION TEST QA Document Package Westinghouse Elec.
- 1) Fabrication Weld Exa- Corp., Pittsburgh, PA i mination(ultrasonic, penetrant and magnetic particle.) ,
Preservice Examination B&W Lynchbu g
- 2) Preservice Examination Virginia Unit 1.
UT only Report Unit 2 will start
- 4/83.
(CWH) l
i
. l
- 22. Describe in detail and provide copies of all studies,
- tests, and experiments on thermal shock and reactor embrittlement in which the Applicant and/or Westinghouse participated in the past.and/or are now participating.
o Any documents responsive to this request were identified in Applicants' December 31, 1982 Response (at 63). (RWO)
- 23. If completed, provide the results of the fracture toughness program involving irradiation and testing of weld metal used in fabrication of operating pressure vessels of pre-1972 construction mentioned in Applicant's FSAR page 5.3-16.
The referenced fracture toughness program has not been completed. Twenty-three progress reprts have been issued.
(RWO)
- 25. Do the Catawba reactors comply with the same ASME specifications as the Oconee reactors? If not,.what are the specific differences? What ferritic composition .
is used at Catawba? At Oconee?
The Oconee reactor vessels were manufactured to the 1967 ASME Code through the Summer 1967 Addenda. The Catawba reactor vessels' compliance with ASME specifications is set forth in FSAR Section 5.3.1.5. .
. As Applicants indicated in their December 31 Responses (at 72), they are unable to answer the question concerning "ferritic composition" because they cannot ascertain its meaning. (RWO)
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . . _ - _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . -
- 26. Provide all Charpy test data on coupons tested for Oconee reactor materials, plate, weld, and bolting, both prior and subsequent to operation identifying sample position and time of test. Specifically, copies of test results 10 CFR 50, App. H IV are requested. r 8
The following table, prepared in response to Interrogatory 26, shows the location of the requested data for each reactor vessel at the Oconee Nuclear Station. Table A-1 of Appendix A is the data in the material test reports that includes the material type and chemistry and the impact data of the plate. The Charpy impact data of the shell forgings, plate and Weld Metal are exhibited in Appendix C, Tables C1-C5. The original materials data (MTR's) of Appendices A&C and the bolting materials ~ data are in storage at the Cherokee station OA vault.
TABLE I l
MATERIALS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM MATERIALS TEST CHARPY IMPACT CAPSULE DOCUMENT REPORT DATA ANALYSIS NO. NO.
A-1 APPENDIX C
- 1. OCI-E BAW 1436 TABLES Cl-C5 BAW 1699 A-1 APPENDIX C
- 2. OCII-A TABLES Cl-C5 A-1 APPENDIX C
- 3. OCIII-B BAW 1697 TABLES Cl-C5 (CWH) 1 i
. .a e
_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ n_ x _1 _ : _: _
C . ..:
- 27. What RTNDT values were anticipated over the life of the Oconee reactors, by year or whatever increment was used?
What are the corresponding estimates for Catawba?
I RT values for Oconee Nuclear Station are as follows:
NDT Oconee Weld Initial RT 'F Unit I.D.4 RT NDT F 9-M82" Unit il SA-1430 20 165 SA-1493 20 152 SA-1585 20 129 SA-1229 20 151 WF-25 20 170 Unit #2 hT-154 20 145 WF-25 20 186 Unit 43 hT-67 20 150.
WF-200 20 10S hT-70 20 196 a - RTNDT values calculated using Regulatory Guide 1.99.
! Values are calculated for vessel I.D. It has been shown 1
that RT values calculated per R.G. 1.99 are conservative.
NDT New correlation curves are being developed using surveillance capsule results, which will provide more accurate prediction of EOL RTNDT. Predictions of RTNDT a e /4T and 3/4T location using R.G. 1.99 are included in each capsule report. (CWH) l
- 28. Provide all ultrasonic test data for Oconee reactors, identifying positions of the scan's, the time of the test, and the interpretation of the data.
I l
1
.o l
The information requested in response to Interrogatory 28 will be made available for inspection. The following table shows the location of, and the quantity of documentation for, each reactor vessel.
OCOHEE 1.2 & 3' TEST DOCUMENT LOCATION
- 1) Fabrication Weld Exa- QA Document Package mination Ultrasonic, (2 file cabinet drawers) QAVault(Cherokee) ,
Penetrant and Magnetic
. Particle.
- 2) Preservice Examina- Preservice Examination i
tion. UT only Reports (5 volumes / Unit) QA DPC EC 1273
- 3) Inservice Inspection Inservice Inspection (ISI). UT only - Reports (5 volumes / Unit) QA DPC EC 1273
- 29. What provisions have been made for annealing Oconee reactors, and Catawba reactors, in terms of facility Gesign? 10 C.F.R. 50, App. G IV C.
No provisions have been made to anneal the Oconee reactor vessels. (RWO)
- 30. Provide a copy of the annealing procedures for both Oconee reactors and Catawba reactors.
Not applicable. See Response to Interrogatory 29.
l .
l
[
i ;. .
< 31. How much down time will be required for the annealing operation?
Not applicable. See Response to 2nterrogatory 29.
- 32. What incremental radiation dose is estimated for the workers involved in the annealing operation?
Not applicable. See Response to Interrogatory 29.
l c.
- 33. For each Oconee reactor, what is the neutron fluence (E>1. OMeV) at beltline? What are the calculated fluences for Catawba reactor vessels at 10, 20, 30 '
and 40 years?
30, 1982, The peak vessel ID fluence as of September for the-reactors at Oconee Nuclear Station is as follows:
1 2
- Unit 1 .27 X 10 ' n/cm 19 2 .,
Unit 2 .23 X 10 n/cm 19 2 Unit 3 .24 X 10 n/cm (CWH)
- 34. For each Oconee reactor, provide all surveillance data obtained for compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix H.
The reports listed below are the results of the examination of each capsule of the Duke Power Company's Oconee Nuclear The program Station Reactor Vessel Surveillance program.
was planned to monitor the effects of neutron irradiation v.- .- - . _ . - ~ . - , . . . . - . _ .- ... --_.m.-. _m. ..--__r., _ _ _ . ~ _ - . _ _ . , . . . - . . . . - . _ _ . - . - - - - _ - - . - - , . , - , , . - , . - - -,---_-
on the Reactor Vessel Material for the 40-year design life of the Reactor Pressure Vessel.
REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM CAPSULE DATE & LOCATION OF UNIT ANALYSIS NO. DOCUMENT NO. DATA DOCUMENT OCI-F BAW 1421 8/75 LICENSING DPC 1
1 VOLUME WC 1703 OCI-E BAW 1436 9/77 LICENSING DPC 1
1 VOLUME WC 1703 2 OCII-C BAW 1437 5/77 LICENSING DPC 1 VOLUME WC 1703 OCII-A BAW 1699 12/81 LICENSING DPC 2
1 VOLUME 'WC 1703 OCIII-A BAW 1438 7/77 LICENSING DPC 3
1 VOLUME WC 1703 OCIII-B BAW 1697 10/81 LICENSING DPC 3
1 VOLUME WC 1703 (CWH)
- 35. Was it initially assumed that the Oconee reactors would
, meet the conditions of 10 CFR 50, App. H II C -3 a?
- Have the Oconee reactors met these conditions?
Appendix H to 10 CFR 50 was first published in 1973, at least seven years after construction of the Oconee l
reactor vessels. Accordingly, the Oconee vessels were not l
assumed to meet, and do not now meet, the conditions set forth in-10 CFR 50, App. H II C 3 a. The vessel materials
,m._.- _ .-_ _.- _- - _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . , . , , , , , , . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ , _ _
surveillance program at Oconee is completely adequate and has been approved by the NRC.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Albert V. Carr, J DUKE POWER COMP P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.
( February 28, 1983 I
- c. .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'g3 7.g as All :21 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_lE-? .
<*..,7 In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
I, C. L. Hartzell, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Licensing Engineer, Catawba Nuclear Station.
I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 8 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my.
knowledge and belief.
\
C. L. Harizell
~
(
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1983 bld f .
Not'ary Public AhM-My Commission Expires: J AD 1994 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- d3 IG -3 gl 22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- ? Shk' 8
In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
J AFFIDAVIT I, C. W. Hendrix, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Maintenance Engineer, Nuclear Production Department.
I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 44 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
C. W. Hendrix Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1983 LLD 0 - \
Notary Public Hy Commission Expires: Jo . / ffI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
..n g BE? ORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3: .
. r :,. 2 4
In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT I, Roger W. Ouellette, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Assistant Engineer-Licensing, Nuclear Production Department.
I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 8, 27 and 44 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
90 AA Roger W. Quellette Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1983 1 '
Notary Public My Commission Expires: Ao , /f IY I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , ,.y _3 p,g ,22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- . . ;b, In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT I, Mary L. Birch, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as System Radwaste Engineer, Nuclear Production Department.
I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 27 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best.of my knowledge and belief.
Giu b Mary L/ Birch Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1983
~
Not'ary Public My Commission Expires: f 10, /f f Y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD. _3 g ,,
In the Matter of )
) .
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Supplemental Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and Requests to Produce
. Regarding Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6, 7, 8, 27 and 44" in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 28th day of February, 1983:
James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
P. O. Box Y Anne W. Cottingham Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Dr. Richard F. Foster Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Richard R. Wilson,.Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
- Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 11549 l Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert Guild, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law Chairman P. O. Box 12097 Atomic Safety and Licensing Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Palmetto Alliance Washington, D. C. 20555 2135 1/2 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 I
I Jesse L. Riley 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Henry A. Presler .
945 Henley Place ,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Scott Stucky Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Albert v. Carr .
9 1
( '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _