ML20099C626

Supplemental Responses to Applicant Interrogatories Re Contentions 2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20099C626
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Samelson A ILLINOIS, STATE OF
To:	ILLINOIS POWER CO.
References
CON-#484-219 OL, NUDOCS 8411200001
Download: ML20099C626 (37)

Text

7[

, , _ .. . - m . . ~ > < .

,- , I;

. af Kr :

' ' ofg R b

'=

- RELATED CORRESPONDENCE ge - ,

.s.

• ' ~ UNITED' STATES 10F AMERICA V NUCLEAR: REGULATORY. COMMISSION-  %,g[vED cos

- : p' , s --

IN THE MATTER OF-2 ILLINOIS.' POWER. COMPANY, etial.:

_ -) [S4J3y7pj)A.

)

-) y

Do'cket O S No.,/.50-4610L ~

. (Operating License for! -)- p . fCF' y ,

'Clinton Power Station, Unit 11) ' ). .

alg W!'

^

STATE OF'ILLINOI5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS INTERROGATORIES:

~

~

The State of Illinois, by Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney.

General ~'of the State o'f Illinois, hereby supplements: responses' .

to Applicants' Interrogatories relating to Contention number. ,

two and Contention number three as follows:

CONTENTION TWO-l Interrogatory No. 1. Identify the person or persons _

signing the answers to these interrogatories- on~ behalf of the

j. Intervenor.

f Response to Interrogatory No. 1.' The State of l

]* Illinois has agreed to submit-supplemental responses to j Applicants' interrogatories. These responses are not submitted

! formally on behalf of the Prairie Alliance, the party granted l leave to intervene in this proceeding according to the Second a .

l Special Prehearing Conference Order. The person signing these 4

responses is identified on page 13 below.

p"q Interrogatory No. 2. Identify every person who participated in any way in the preparation of any answer or

- partial answer to each interrogatory set forth below-and

.$$ga.

describe fully the substance of each person's participation.

. Response to Interrogatory No. 2. Other than the  ;

o l>a g attorneys of record for the State of Illinois, Richard B.

Hubbard and Gregory C. Minor, MHB Technical Associates,1723 l

U g- Hamilton Avenue - Suite.K, San Jose, California 95125,.provided la.o technical assistance in the preparation of these responses.

L 3 S01

. , -^ '

4 b x I-n ,

, +y a

< ~

p ..

Interrogatory No.<3.: .Identifyfandjaxplain1 fully,.by.

2 is'oction,1 subsection, :and paragraph, 'thelfactual; basis for bases for each: allegation made in each. contention.:

>s ,

- Response to Interrogatory No. 3. .The~ .'f actuali base s iforeach' allegation-ma'efinicontentionitwo"areset$forthandd ,

', Lwill be; stated further in; the ; particularized -revised 'contentioni .

currently under discussion 1byLthe parties. ((SeeJ1etters- ;

~

~

Samelson to Zabel and-Goddard-datedfSeptember 28,fl984'andithe

~

t

~

attachment thereto.) '

.~ Interrogatory'No. 4.- IdensifylbysectionIsubsection, ~

paragraph.and exact statement-in each atatute, rule,-

, regulation, decision, or order, the; requirement or requirements-L allegedly: violated by reason of the. facts set-forth in. response to-Interrogatory.No.c3=or the other' interrogatories ~ applicable to-the contention.

l Response to Interrogatory No. 4.- The(requirements b allegedly violated are set-forth and'will be stated further'in.

i the particularized revised contention currently under <

(,

discussion by the parties.

Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all documents and . ~

communications upon which the Intervanor relies'to establish-i each of the facts which support each contention, and identify -

the part or parts .of each such document or communication relied -

i t upon to establish such fact.

~

Response to Interrogatory No. 5. In addition to the i

NRC Region III inspection reports identified in response to i

Interrogatory No. 18 below, the following documents support the

!/ allegations made in contention two:

.Baldwin Associates External Audits i

L -

Illinois Pcwer Co. Trend Analyse,s

[ . i 1983 Joint Utility Management Audit Report Self Initiated Construction Project. Evaluation Report (December 17, 1982, as. revised

, January 18, 1983)

?a _

Illinois Power Co. Quality Assurance Audits l' .

3 .

pM >

_g ,

( ,m , -

• [j

~

y ~q

., ~ , . ,

I

• g *

• I w

~ g ,. +m ,

' ;+ + .. ,

.IllinoisiPowerLCo. $ alit'y Akaurance" ? . .. '

xf W Surveillance' Findings ~,; Construction andLPlant? .

ue ,

^ ' '

=

'Operat, ions .

~ - ,,

.s

.i7 s

.g x . g 4 e-

o. t Illinois'PoweriCob; Audits (of Sargent and Lundy! s .

N s s

'~; " ; Illinois Power . Co. 2 Audit's-~6f' BO'P Ven' dors m

, +

1-LIllinois' Power Co. . Quality A'ssurance -P,arsonnel?

. Qualification / Certification Records-

~

m ,

. - cINPO Self-Initiated LEvaluation Findingsfand. ,

LCommitments1 4: -; IINPO Self-Initiated EVEluAtion~ Verification:ahd '

-Monthly; Reports- s ,

w -

Illinois Power'Co./Sufveillance Findings. -

Baldwin' Associates Internal.Au'd'its]. ~

.I-192 through I-304'(Closed);_ *

.I-205 through I-305 (0 pen)

Illinois: Power Co.' Quality Assurance; Personnel -

' Training Records'

~ Baldwin Ass'ociates..Q T TS Personnel Training' [

p Records Investigation; continues.

Interrogatory No. 6. Identify any: individual-whos:the Intervenor plans to call to testify to any- of tha facts or. .

~r allegations which.su of such individual. pport each contention.and the qualification Response to Interrogatory No. 6. Richard B. Hubbard and Gregory C. Minor. Th'a qualifications-'of these individuals 1

.will be provided in the written' testimony to be filed in ^

l l ' advance of hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. %-2.7.43.

t( ~

Interrogatory No.--7.

. Summarize the facts and evidence-  ;

- to which each of. the 1.ndividuals named in the answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is expected to testify.

3 i l ';

Response to Interrogatory No. 7. The State of Illinois objects to 'Interrogat'ory No. 7 on the ground that it . '

requests the same information that will provided In the

--w i tnesses ' direct-testimony to be submitted in written form in

' advance ~ of hearing, as ; required by 10 C.F.R. l' 2.743.

~

h; hwy ll" <: f, - d

, < l ,' ,

r A,Y' . < s l-16 3 -

s y ;> ^

• {G [,[

J ,

. . ; ;g s

[? .q / ..;}

^

^Nh * '

4 r i l _

' l o c T

?knterrogatoryNo.-8. IdentifyTeachJandieveryldocumentL a , .. , . . . l

' i~' "

-"i from>which any-individual namedLin th's Intervenor'sCanswertforf y

..' ?eachl contention to? Interrogatory No.=6Lis.:exp3cted to--testify,',' , ,

'whether7such; document;beymade by!his hused bythim ini _ ..

- , 4 ,

- ; preparation 1of;his stestimony,;or introdu'ced Las- an;exhibitsat ' '

~

'f the e evidentiary hearing. , ,

1 j

a> -

-Response to Interrogatory No.=8.. -The< State ofJ v ,

u -

. , . ~

~

W-

Illinois;objpcts-to', Interrogatory;No.L.8on1theLgroundthht-it

. ~ ' +-

requests" the same information that' will' provide'd Lini the- '

~

. witnesses'. direct testimonyLto beEsubmittediin iritten formLin. -

advance- of- hearing, Jaa . required by 10 C.F R.15 l2.743.

?- '

. Interrogatory'No.-9.- Identify ~anysand al11 exhibits '

which the Intervenor plans to-submit into evidence-attthe~ s hearing to prove-the facts which support each contention. _

1 Response to Interrogatory No.79.2 ~ The State of

Illinois objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it t .

requests the same.information that will provided in1the witnesses' direct testimony to .be s'ubmit ted in written form in - ,

I advance of hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R.s5.2.743.

Interrogatory No. 10. Identify the'section., page

' number and exact statement- in each volume of Applicants Final

. Safety Analysis Report -("FSAR")',_ Environmental Report or other- 4

[ document prepared or supplied by IP which any individual called upon to testify by the Intervenor is expected to challenge,

[ call'into question, rebut,. deny or refute with contention or which the Intervenor at present respect tc 4.ach challenges, calls

into question, denies, rebuts or refutes with respect to each -

[ contention. .

i  !

Response to Interrogatory No. 10. The State of Illinois objects to Interrogatory No.10.on the ground that it request's the same-information that'will provided in the.

witnesses' direct testimony to be submitted in written form in advance of hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.743. The

( State of Illinois notes that the revised particularized l

! contention identifies specific documents prepared or supplied I

E by, Illinois Power Co. which are being challenged.

f- I Li [

M

~ '

. ,~ , , 3 _.}

t x -

+ <

+ ,

.a sq ,; . ,.

+ m .

"' N _- Interrogatory'No".'11.-: Summarize lhe fact'sLand4 --

~ ~

~

iidentify lach person and; document reliedupon'to proveleach'of_ '

d the; facts which the :Intervenoricontends7 rebuts- any! of the .

. statements"containediin any-of the documents: described ini 4

' Interrogatory.No.=:10._s Response to Int'errogatory No.411. 1 The State of -

Illinois : obj ect's' to LIntstrogatory -No. . liv on J the ; ground 1that fit ~

~

requests-the same informationithatE will providsdLin:th'e;

~

1

~

witnesses direct. testimony to belsubmittedfin written form ia advance of; hearing, asErequired;by 10 C.F.R. .lJ2.743-t Interrogatory No. 17. Identify-specifically;the' '

"t.userous other. Quality; Assurance'and Quality Control- - 4 functions". alleged to be deficient..

Response to Interrogatory No.17.- lThe qualitiy assurance ~and quality; control ' functions alleged' to be deficient -

~

are identified specifically in the revised particularided- .

contention currently under discussion by-the_ parties, 1'n thi; V: -

~

Itop Work Orders issued at Clinton power station and.in-the NRC -

~

~

Region III inspection reports-identified.in-Attachment A hereto..

Interrogatory No. 18. For each of the Quality-

Assurance and Quality Controf functions identified-in.

Contention No. 2 or in response to Interrogatory No.-17,

[ identify by NRC Region III Inspection Report number, date, page i- number, and exact statement each Quality Assurance and Quality Control problem which allegedly raises serious questions as to

[ IP's management and technical capabilities to operate, backfit -

l and shutdown permanently the Clinton Power Station.-

i Response to' interrogatory No. 18. See Attachment A.

L

Investigation continues.

g i CONTENTION TWO (Continued) - R2SPONSES TO

!' APPLICANT'S SECOND ROUND INTERROGATORIES Responses to General Interrogatory Nos. (1) through Q)_. .

LSee responses to Interrogatory Nos. (1) through (3) above.

5-

~

l l

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

4gy g{ ;- ,

~ '

w n; 3

s a

,2 sc ' . .

iInterrogatory Noi4S ' For. each cons'ultcntdid::ntEifiddi No.43,qasjwell-as foriGregory C. -Q t

, - fin; resp'onse to-Interrogatory i i provide'the following;

~

3.Minorcand MHB Technical' Assoc at on, ,

information: '

_92 v q

• a. ^ Identify'each: agreement,; written.or-Joral,Jbetween Intervenor'andithe3 ,

, ' consultant and. describe fullyitheJ ' '

" termaiof eachtsuchiagreement.

- -

1 -

i / -

• b'.- Describe fullyDthe~ assistance which '

'1 Lthe consultant has? rendered ~

s

. JIntervenoritoidateland the;- m assistance which Intervenor1 e anticipatestheiconsultant]will provide.in the: future.; * ,- #

cc. Identify-all documents' and

~

' communications lwhich-Intervenor has- -

furnished ~to or received from:any; '

-consultant: identified'in~ response -

to Interrogatory.No. 3.

d. Describe fully eachffee arrangement -

between Int ervenor including and =thes  ? any_~ . . ' ' >

consultant consultant!s-hourlyorperdiem charge,: total" fees paid- to - date, d

• i and' total; fees ~ expected to:be:pai - - -

' in the-future <

Response to Interrogatory No.'4.' The State of 1

Illinois _ objects to Interrogatory No. 4.and each !of!its - .

'. ~

subparts on the grounds that it requests information that'is i,

(1) privileged from disclosure and (2)' not Crelevant to. any I - matter in issue in this proceeding.

I^

j.

-Interrogatory No. 5. For each' interrogatory-answered.

below, identify all documents and communications upon which-Intervenor has. relied in.any way in providing the answer.to-such interrogatory.

l t Response to-Interrogatory No. 5. Not applicable since no'second round-interrogatories were stated with resp,ect to p

Contention II. -

! - 6-I' r'

i

('

l e

,,.,_--..-.,.,,__-...~.m.. !Lm~.r .m.-.,-. .-,..~_.+.-,4m....$-.L-. . . . ~ . _ . . , - . ~. -

m e - , _ . _ _ .

. 7_,

- ~

- 4

< -:4'

~~ '

y ,

n.

% gJV , L'-

' ', N - . :CONTENTIdN3III"- '

u e

I

. Interrogatory No.41'.~LIdentify the: person:or persons y.

- signing.the answers to:these interrogatories 1 on b'ehalf lof the ? -

_ -Intervenor; -

e - ,

Respons'e to Interrogatory No. 1. .The:Stateiof; s.,.

7 JIllin$isha'siagreedt61 submit 4supplementa'1responsesto '

LTheseiresponsesiare.notisubmibted' k - Applicants' interrogatories.

l

'Normally?on _ behalf of the Prairie A111ance, thh' party granted

~

r i thislproceedingiaccording to the Second-

~

cleave-to intervene in

~

~ '

~

TheLperson digning these SpecialjPrehearing; Conference Order.

~

responses.is identifiedlon page113 below. .

Interrogatory No. 2. Identify every' person who-4 -

participated.in any..way in the preparationLof anycanswer or-l partial answer to each interrogatory set forth:below' and - ~

' describe fully the substance of 'each person's Lparticipation. -

Response-to Interrogatory =No.12.:-Othen than.the attorneys of record ~for the State of Illinois, Richard. B.

l Hubbard. and Gregory C. Minor, MHB Technical Associaces,1723 j

~

1

' Hamilton Avenue - Suite-K, San Jose, California 95125, provided technical assistance in the' preparation of these responses.

[

t j

Interrogatory No. 3. Identify and explain fully,.by section, subsection, and paragraph, the factual basis or bases ,

' for each allegation made in each contention.

' Response to Interrogatory No. 3.- The; factual bases' i

i-for each allegation made in contention three are stated in the discussion by p- . particularized revised contention currently under the parties. (See letter'-- Zabel to Samelson~ dated.

October _25, 1984 and the attachment thereto.)

Interrogatory No. 4. Identify by section, subsection, c

para raph and exact statement in each statute, rule, i nts L

L

.regu ation, decision, or. order, the requirement or requ reme l allegedly violated by reason of the facts set forth in response to' Interrogatory No. 3.or'the other interrogatories applicable

.- to1the contention.

- 7-4 9

_ _ _ _ . _ _ . , . . _ _ _ .. - - - , _ _ ...-,.,w, ,_.,....%,,,,m,-r,-, ,e,_,...mw.y.wy,w,n.,,,,m.,,..~.%y ,,y,,m.,y%,,,y-e,w,pp,mf.3,, ,,p,y.,c., p,w . w y,,, q ,4 y y ,, y

qw#,

s - g - >

,j_ -

!<' : ~ -

- n V4$.g q

4,  :- .

y .

q ;g

~

3 k,  ; q. y _

' ~

iResponse'to Int rogatory N b 41-- iraquirements?

~r ^ .. . .

.;; ; ~ ~

' " an.

gd y7 A,7.J ; allegedly)  ; , violated?are statedjin the;particularizedurevised _

4g  ;,;g W. .

McontentiSd'currentlyunderfdiscN.ssion byg['pdrtiesO(See j

r, a J

~

> t ..

a -

~

ilktter:--iZabel t'oESame1 son dated'Octoberf25,M198M andYthe-T

5 - .

, q' ' ~ s o o,. - y '

- *attachme'ntilthereto . )- . ..

+ .. .

,\-

.i t - . _ _ . . . -

~

Interrogatory No. 5( ? Identify <allfdocuments;ard:

communications upon which the:Intervenor?reliesito establish each'of theyfacts which support each' contention,jand,. identify. .

~ thel parc[or: parts of each;suchidocument?or communicationt relied s

upon to establish such fact. :e -

~

+ .. . . .. a.

• .In addition to=the *

~

, ResponseMo Interrogatory No. 5.

, s '

documen :identi.fied-in the revised particularized contention,.

xthe.'following documents.'s'upport the?allegationsimade9fn.

m

=

contention ~three-

~

Sections 'of the Clinton Power Station s FSAR: applicable to control room

. 6

?

4 instrununtationiand inadequate core ,

- cooling.

c st Safety, D aldation Report, sections 6.2.7 andL7..

I -

NRC. memorandum dated =JanuaryL25,-1984, Faust _

Rosa to Richard-J. Goddard.

s

, s.

Appendix E to Saul. Levy Incorporated Report SL1-8211.=

l F.A. Spangenberg ,1111riois Power Co. 'to A."Schwencer, NRC dated October 10,1984 (U-0749). '

F.A...Spangenberg, Illinois Power Co. to-A. Schwencer, NRC dated October ~2,1984

\ (U-0745) '.

A. Schwer.cer, NRC: to D. Herborn, Illinois

[

Fower Company, dated August. 17, 1984.

L i ,

l- Ve, i -

J.<D. Geier, Illinois Power Company to

- p+ 7 A. Schwencer dated February 10, 1984, (U-0695)'. e

[l

[ m, ',

l- ,%~ ,

s L .. +

. _. _--.._._,.a-.___--m._~ .

.--.;_.1C.n.._a...-_-,.,.._._.~.__.--..._x.. -....-%.. . . _ . . -

(; & , R~

7 J: .

L

[b p.

~'

yl___ , ' %<7-g~ l ' y ,

, . ., x -: . --

[; ~,

pi ' y

?'

3 i :RtM.?Nel' son CIllinois Power.Companyito?

W^w .

e, '

. 1A dSchwencer. dated October:28,11983/

7.-

= -

x1 -

4(U .0676) . .

e -

,g, -

_:_ ;p;A esp'angenberg'to A.sSchwencer.date'di

~

' z S ep tember . 28,z 19_84,j (U-07.41) '.

)

4 1

~

7 . _

_ ;~ , ,

a ,

..H1 Bernardb NRC to G.:iWuller, Illinois:

Power CompanyfdatedTJuly;.16, 1982.-

Investigation 1 continues.

In'terrogatory No. 6. -Identifyfany individual 1whom(the" ~

VIntervenor -plans .to call to testify to Eany_ of Lthe: facts 1or _

alleg'ations which support Eeach contention and the' qualification; of such: individual -

Response to Interrogatory'No.I6. LRichard :B~. Hubb'a'rd

~

~

L and ' Gregory .:C. ' Minor. . The'. qualifications Jof jthese individuals'-

will be providedlin the written testimonyLto be; filed lin- '

^

advance,of-hearing pursuant to'10'C.F.R.: $ 2.743.

Interrogatory No. 7.. Summarize.the facts'and-evidence to which each of the: individuals named in the' answer to-P Interrogatory No.'~6'is explected to; testify.- ' '

, Response to Interrogatory No. 7. The' State of

^

Illinois objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that'it requests the same.information that will provided11n the' witnesses' direct testimony to be submitted--in, written form in--

advance.of hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R $ 2.743.

Interrogatory-No. 8. Identify each.an'd every document from which.any individual named in the Intervenor's answer:for' ,

each contention to Interrogatory No. 6 is expected to testify,

~

whether such document be made by him, used-by-him-in

- preparation'of his testimony,' or introduced as an exhibit at

~

the evidentiary hearing.

i- .

Response to Interrogatory No. 8. The State of

j. . Illinois' objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the' ground that it requests the same information that.will provided in..the

(. witnesses' direct testimony to be submitted in written; form in advance'of hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. %.2.743.

i .

. !eI ).p ' ~ _ . ,

,7 r

~- 1 9_

t

• E01 -:

~c i

. . ..  :: Interrogatory Nod N-tIdentify:any'and~all;extiibitsj _ '

LwhichTthe~.Intervenor plans to submit 1into' evidence-at the

~~ ~

~

4 y , thearingi to prove the! facts :which support each contention.:- ,

LResponse to Interrogatory? No.E9.' iTheI St'ata iof:

Illinois ; obj ects ; to ' Interrogatory :No . ': 9jonlthe,. ground;that it

• requests 3theis'ame :information that- wi1Eiprovided :inithe; ,

, witnes'ses'Ldirect testimony toibe' submitted.in written 1 form-in=

advancefof hearing,H as required 'b'y 10 C.~F.R. l 2.743. ,

JInterrogatory No. 10.--: Identify.the:section, Epa number'and exact. statement- in eachivolume of Applicants'ge .

Finaln

Safety Analysis -Report ("FSAR") ; Environmental ' Report ;or other

~

document prepared:or supplied:by IP.which any individualicalled supon to testify by;the;Intervenor'isLexpected to-challenge,-

call:into question, rebut,: deny.or.refuteLwith.respectctoneach' ~

contention or which the Intervenor at present challenges, calls- -

into_ question ~,- denies,.rebutsior refutes withLrespect to-eache

~

contention.. C Response to-Interrogatory No.:10. tThe. State of-.

Illinois objects to' Interrogatory No.g10 on the ground that t iti

{~

requests the same information that will provided inTthe:

.witnesses' direct testimony?to be' submitted in. written form:in; .

advance of hearing, as. required by 10 C.F.R. 512.743.: - The-State of Illinois notes that th'e revised particularized

. contention identifies specific-documents prepared or supplied' by Illinois Power Co. which are being challenged.

- Interrogatory No. 11. Summarize.the facts.and

-identify each person and document relied ~upon to prove each.of.

l the facts which the'Intervenor' contends rebuts any7of the-(.  ; statements contained in.any of the documents described in i Interrogatory.No. 10.

I

j. Response to : Interrogatory No.11. The State of

! Illinois objects to-Interrogatory No. 11'on the ground.that it I

requests the'same information that will provided-in the witnesses' direct testimony to be' submitted in written form in advance ~of. hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743.

l

. - , . a. -

.,-..-.,.-..-.-..a-.--...- . - - - - - . . . - - . - . , . . - - . . . . ~ . . . . . - . - ~ ~

,- a. .

y-_ .~

,, u

< ,> + ^

w Q'h ~ ~ l ll  ?

.) 1:,

m:_. ,

t . m s

3 l Interrogatory:No. ."24. 'For;each subparagraph lof1'

^

s

+

' Contention?No. 6, . identify by =section, Epage number Land exact' - , .

2 a ~ statement,cthose current NRC requirements for?which the; design;

~andLfabricationtof the Clinton: Power l.Stationicontroliroom -

~

Llayout1 and . instrumentation has L allegedly ' notubeen: modified; . >

,~ ' Response'to Interrogatory No.-124. : Thelcurrent NRC1 '

requirements ?.for .whichithefdesignf and . fabrication _of. the

~

iClintonIP'ower S'tation controliroom-layoutEandfinstrumentation; 3

'has:alle'gedly not been modified areLidentifiedFin the- -

particularized f revised contention- currently underl discussion by4 j

~

lthe parties. . '(SeeL 1etter--Zabel?t o1Samelson ! dated October '25, j :1984 andithe'attachmentJthereto.)j

-Interrogatory No.'.25 7 Vith respect to Contention No.

6(b) , identify. and ~ explain. why ~ the ' instrumentation for detecting inadequate -core cooling: in case. of ~a~n abnormal' occurrence.is insufficient.

-Response to Interrogatory No. 25. S'ee ' revised-

particularized - contention

III,. 'subpart -(b) '. . .

. Interrogatory No.-26.. With' respect'_to. Contention

' No. 6(d), -identify and explain the features 'of a Safety.

-Parameter Display System which are not provided in the main-control room.

i

Response'to Interrogatory No. 26. The alleged' deficiencies in the Safety Parameter Display system are

-identified and explained in revised particularized' contention III, subpart (d).

E

. Interrogatory No. 27. With respect to Contention No..

6(e), identify and explain why the instrumentation for

monitoring' accident _ conditions is inadequate.

[,

5

. 11 _ .

L II L

^ -

l>

?!

l' ~ - , . . ,....._.,__.-.....,_...-.b._,,.., ~.,_,_..-,4-..,,..--,..

.g - - - - ' -~

$ - =

1 ,

e g f$k ':

-Response?to Interrogatory No.1275 The) instrumentation a

. . forimonitoring' accident' conditions."iscinadequateThecause~ -

^ ~

Applicant,has;not'auffidiently. documented'its? compliance withi q

. - the five designLqualification~ criteria:nor:hasfit J provided-

~

sufficient-justification for?requestedfexemptions.from ~

RegulatoryGuideL1.97,asidentifihdintrevised4 particularized;

~

~

contention'III,isubpart-(e)l.-

i

, Interrogatory No. 28. ; With respect to' Contention:No.

L6(f) ,/ explain how IP . "has not' demonstrated its. ability to .

, i<

comply; with~ current NRC -requirements."

Response to: Interrogatory No. 28. -Former Contention l LNo. 6(f) has been :w'ithdrawn by agreementLof 3the parties.-

-Interrogatory No. 29. With respect'to-Contention-No.:

6(h), identify the instruments on backirow ' panels .that should.

be on frontL row panels', and explain why it .is '" insufficient"' to -

place:such' instruments on:back row panels.

Response to-Interrogatory No. 29. Former Contention No. 6(h) 'has been withdrawn by agreement: of the. parties .

Interrogatory No.L30. With respect to Contention No..

6(j), identify the source for the . requirement that Applicants must provide documentation showing thatlthe Clinton Power Station can be modified.

Response to Interrogatory No. 30. Former. Contention

, No. 6(j) has been withdrawn by ' agreement of the parties.

i CONTENTION III (Continued) - RESPONSES 4

i TO APPLICANTS' SECOND ROUND INTERROGATORIES I Responses to' General Interrogatory Nos. 1-thru 4. See-answers given to genera L1 interrogatory- nos. -(1) thru (4) under ,

contention three above.

Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all documents and

. communications upon which the. Intervenor relies to establish-i each of the facts which support each contention, and identify L the .part. or parts of each such document or communication relied upon to establish such fact.

j .12 -

.- _. - - -. - .a . . __ - - - . - . . _ . - .. - .. - ...-. _

~ ^

[-

co ' [. _.

2_ .+ , _

~

'l A -

, .w.

~

l

u. '

" Response to Interrogatory No. 5. 1SeeLanswerEto:

1 f.: ' . LIhterrogatory No. 5.above.; s r iInterrogatory No.'9. , Explain' fully infwhati. ways the i Ldiscovery conducted by'Intervenor has: changed',' supplemented,Jor- 7

-: reinforced'Intervenors'? specific ~allegationsimade.in. Contention .

No.16-andcidentify each document'and communication discovered- + 1 nwhich has^ changed,osupplemented or-.reinforcedJauch specific'

allegation. ,This Interrogatory-should beispecifically answered'

-for subparts : (a)-(j) c of Contention 'No~. 6' Response to Interrogatory No.J9. *The Stateiof f

~ Illinois:has conducted no: formal ~ discovery regarding the

~

control room contention. .

.' Interrogatory No.v10. In-- view- of :Intervenor's - .

, statement in'its Answer to:InterrogatoryLNo.:24Lof: Applicant's-First Set ' of . Interrogatories -that its" answer: i's : incomplete .as.

furthe'r information.was forthcoming by the discovery process,.

~Intervenor should revise:its1answerito Interrogatory No.?24--in

-light of any new information~made:available through its review

'of documents produced by Applicants. ,

Response-to Interrogatory No. 10.. The State;of: T Illinois has' conducted no formal discovery'regarding the i

control' room contention. .

i.

PEOPLE OF'THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 1

BY: NEIL F. HARTIGAN

Attorney General ~

r3 ,

BY: / Ns t/ /~

Allen Sametson Assistant: Attorney General 1 Environmental ~Contro1' Division of Counsel:

Greig: R.: Siedor Assistant Attorney General

.-Environmental: Control-Division ,

. 500. South Second Street S Illinois - 62706 L($ringfield

17) 782-9030 DATED November 15, 1984:

13 -

gE e w , u-wwe -

s- .g e, v,.-,.,- _..~-%. c.%-- i.,v, e--- , - ,-A e pw-w,-,.--,,-'-,,,-..,,,--%-.,-.m-+,,--e-- ..re-i,, .ww, ,v.g e-,,,..c,, --w-,-,.- , ..,,.re,

m.

. _j-

. , g- ,

, s

- ~ ~ w.,

4

,g

-= ,% s,, , , .. -a ,

.-., .. s -

',T:)cr / : ' '

"?

i t

r ; e u {J;a . ..

~;_

. _. +

~* -..'~ .>

- + .;y iwp

^

um. ~;

v i :Q2Q i N -

- ,'- I' q

• y- .

c w .~

v s r r. - .

8': 'r g 4 > 4 4

- t , , ,. ,

r ~

7S,'

s s

+

s. ,

O u

TTACHMENT A'

n '

Summary lof QA/QC functioris allelged: to.!be" deficient'.by:the: L '

..NRC Region'III ; inspection 7reportscare:

~

- S ta te :: o f E Illi no.i s ..

- identi fied :b'y - numberiin parenthenses ; follow'ing 'each Lsummary' .

e i>

e i

i f'

a s.

I c.h ,.

e *%- r .,, -e - w +< -,,w,,-~~-- , +---,.,-+-,ne,- , - - , , , , +,-n-m,,w--w ,, ,, , a- ,,,<r

, - - + . <------,--e

y _

n. -

~+ . , .

p r l*

~

2 . n '

'. ~

m -

lL

'q;. ,

~

-ys

. g -. -- e

~ 10-CFR450! APPENDIX B_

~

-CRITERION'I:- ORGANIZATIONT

. 3-id ,

1, Contrary 'toiCriterion' I: -

~

l

!]l . .~ .y .., .. .

.l . . - ~

31) ,~The Baldwin~ Associates-Quality Assurance Manual _didEnot-

~

~ '

Tde.scribeLthe. Quality ~ Assurance 1Organizationjthat is presently-- ~ '

t being -cimplemented .a E ( 87-18 ) . -

y  ? CRITERION'II'--QUALITY ASSURANCE" PROGRAM- - "

Contrary.tO Criterion.II:-

. . 1) . : Activities-affecting quality-wereinot1 accomplished under.

suitably controlled; conditions in'that'QCfinspectors' signed.

statements to theieffect'that,namong other-things,L(1).answersLto Tthedeertification^ examination were;provided prior to and-during-

the examination,'and{(2) incorrect answers.were allowed.to.be corrected. - (81-15) 2)/ - Th'e licenseLfailedIto1 provide quality. assurance-controls.

. over the preparations, review, and approval of~"as' built"1 >

ele'ctrical hanger' drawings prepared-by IPC engineers.

Furthermore,Lthe' licensee failed-to establish which QA-

organization would have functionalicontrol over the "as-built"

'~

electrical hanger program. As.a result, activities affecting the

! quality'of safety related hangers were performed _without' approved.

. procedures. -(81-05) .

3) .IP QA program'did.not provide control 1of the site identified-settlement as non-category monitoring I-on -program drawing 5-20-1004,which 'was -Revision'C. inadvertently (80-06) e a

't 1-

-=_.d , w,p w .m.-.. 4-, - , , - - .-,.,s r-, y----.ee--,,%,,'y, <,. ,..w-.,w,y ,_.,..%,.,,--- , - . -w._ -..,-,-.e,...#w,, ,, - , ---,,,%,- y-,,-,.,.,.e py g-y . . . , - , , ,

_. . m- ~ . - _

~

~

gy t "1 g g, . x, ,

• - ^ C1 3 _

~ - y. ,

, , - W

n. .. ,

TCRITERION2III'- DESIGN CONTROL b -

o, M '

'o Contrary?io t CEiterion'LIII:' .

11 ) : i The licensee' cl'assified ,7 constructed iand /installedi _ m j small, bore component - support : pipe . hangers to ithe .' AISC : standard -

. :rather:than'ASME code.'Asla resulthweldingimaterial.

traceability:and complete. inspection functionstwere not-

-completed 3inDaccordanceqwith ASME; Code. :(83 .12)

~

' J 2)' ~ ' The' design': analysis 'ofl the emergencyi diesel' encjine; 1 exhaust 1pipingldid not include? bellows expansion ^ joint = pressure cthrust1 calculations. (82-20)..

g 3)' Two instances occurred:"ofLfailure1to correctly'

. translate' PSAR requirementslinto' specifications, . drawings,' q

procedures and instructions.: (See Appendix _A p...1 of reportjfor.  ;

' 2 examples) . . (81-27). j 4). During inspection:th'eHfollowingfinstancesEof failure to , _

maintain the required separation' criteria:wereiidentified=1 -

a. The non-divisional 1utilityfpower cablejwhichiconnects

-Termination Cabinet:H13-P709, Ba'y.B, to panelfH13-P672;

-and~which is enclosed ~in' flexible' conduit'is routed in.

a division 4 floor duct containing division 4 cables.-

b.- 1The-cable for1the smokb~ detector'and fire-detector located ir.'a division'2 floor duct at coordinates X-008, Y-105.in unit G of the PGCC floor; duct. complex' s

and which is enclosed in flexible conduit istrouted-

'from'the division'2 floor ductrinto a division 4ffloor duct from which itLenters a non-divisional floor duct.

~(81-09).

5). a)' Pipe suspension ' system canponents were fabricated and installed prior to' formal calculations.(design verification),

being performed and documented including review'and approval by

~ '

authorized personnel.

b) Management failed ~to act to prevent further fabrication and installation of~ seismic supports when the apparent problem concerning lack of formal.; approval >of calcniations had been identified. (81-05)-

6) Non-seismic Category-I floor drain lines in the reactor ifuel-building are installed and routed over and in close proximity to electrical power and control Seismic Category I

. cable: trays.-(80-70).

t I

l l- ,

i .t

wm. .

gp* , . J AA -

• m:

• 4 +

.= _ ,

1 , .

. _ s 7 _

CRITERION 1III[(continued}l- '

i^ _ _. 17 ) - la) Licensee < failed'to?assureqthatlSargent 4 Lundy, c the i Architect- Engi nee rc g provided: adequate i7 nstructions as to:

ithe: number.offholeslin the?4.1fKV switchgear?which;.should'.be

.. welded toi the embedded '.angleliron'. :

b)

The-licensee $ fall'ed~t'o'assureithat the-Architect-Engineer 1correctlyctranslated theLPSAR:requirementsi stated in{ paragraph 3.8.5.'2 by.specifying:the:AWS..-D.1.~1-72 code.

~forz welding and inspectionz in-the drawings / instructions.

(80-04). -

, ;8) 3 Sargent'ELundy detail reinforcing? steel-. drawing was -

incorrect. ' Inspector . observed _ that Baldwin1 Associates 'had installed the reinforcing according tofthe' drawing) instructions-andethatrin.excessfof 200 bars-are spliced at both: elevations.

'(78-05).

- CRITERION IV - PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL 1 Contri.ry to. Criterion IV:

. '1 ) - The procurement document for laboratory testing services does not include or reference:the requirement'for the lab.to comply with. requirements.ATME"329. ' Furthermore, L the :

.' on-site concrete testing -lab - has ' not ~ met : the . requirements of. ATM i

E-329,'in"that, the. lab procedures, equipment'and:personnelihave not been inspected by a qualified' national authority, such as

' CCRL, as evidence of its competence to performLthe required '

tests.-(78-05) i l CRITERION V - INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND DRAWINGS Contrary to Criterion V:

1) a) Two installed load. bolts were fully threaded, rather j than only at each end as called for on the Bill of Material. As L

' a recult of incorrect installation, bolt threads were~mislocated' resulting in a violation of ASME codes.

b) Load bolt on RHR pipe hanger clamp -had wrong threads, another violation"of ASME codes. (84-04)

2) . The construction contractor-failed to follow up outstanding document control transmittals as required'by.BAP

[ 2.0. (84-17) e

. . .. - ~ _. .- - -. __-. _._ _ .-e _ . _ ._ _ _. _ _ _ .-.. _ _.....__ _ . _ _ __._.~.___. _

' q .c , ,' -

'l # ,

3:n

^

=>

z ,

(25

' ^

,? - + 4; '.(. .

-- c ,.

q_

• 3..,- .

I 1 CRITERION Vf(continued)] ,

.'3)- 3It-waslfoundithat-BAP 3.3.2 was reN sed;to negatecthe?

requirement. fora.the--inspection and ~ acceptance - of :se'ismic ; -

Category I : raceway prior to the~-installation:of b'alance plant icables.  ;(83-23) ,

4) The(Contractor _was performing'cleaningiactivities)on ~

Lthe ' Steam. Seperator n(Reactor Internal) .-without the :use.

,, 'of" written procedures or instructions.=(81-32); .

5) 1a)- 'All. Deviation Reports:had.not beenidispositioned 3

-i.in'accordance with-BAP Manual

. Acceptance: criteria.had~not been established:for:

~

b) dispositioning.NCRs-.that identified non' hardware conditions.

. adverse to qualitp. - -

E c) The.planiused to perform a sampling! inspection;ofl-electrical ~ supports was not formulated'in:accordance with standard practices.of providing~~ adequate-justification for the sample size, selection processuand acceptance; criteria for.

L reviewing results..(83-19) . .

.6 ) . Instructions,. procedures,-.or. drawings did not require

.that: measurements be performed for all 2".and:underipipe bendssto assure that' the bends were in compliance with the'8% ovality

tolerance. Consequently, sufficient.. records'were not<available .

to furnish evidence of acceptable bent pipe.- (83-15)'

7): a) Nine instances were~ identified in which Baldwin Associates Quality Control Inpsector qualification records did not contain visual' examination results. This is contrary to the..BA Quality-Control Training Manual.

I i

l l - -,

1

)

4 1

l H ._4 i

y s +

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

p' V ' , =

.. 14 . _ , . ,

1, + - ' > - '

c M

- d r -

^

=

6 +

, 3 ,

iCRITERION Vf(continued) ,- - ,

~w - .r: . _

i Lb)= :Five: instances l were fidentified yin wtiich 'BA' Quality- .

~

l-containtexamination.results.

Control 1 inspector certificationirecords'did

~

L.This~is contraryytot not , . _*. .~3*

.. - fth'e1BA Quality ControlLTraining, Qualification '

i px .nn, Manuali -

y l

~

.c): Two instances were identifiedfin which BA'QualityJ

~ '

7.

m'

? Control. inspector qualificationirecords did not; "

l contain certification :formsifor Level 1III- .

personnel.1 ThisLis contrary to the#BA QualityJ

' LControlL Training QualificationzManual.

id)- Two Linstancestwere . identified Lin;;which' BA certifiedi -

~ Quality < Control ; personnel cas -; Level LIII ~ . inspectors:

~

forithe< duration ofiemployment'rather than:a-three;

4 ' year period. <This.'is contraryHto.the BAfQuality

Control. Training 1 Qualification 1 Manual..

e)- .Three ' instances were . identified Lin whichTBA- Quality.

i control inspector qualification. records did:not contain a waiver letterJwhen it7was used asia' basis'

- for' certification.. This c is' contrary to'the BA-n Qualification: Manual.

Quality. control Traini'g f) Two instances:were identified ~in which BA. Quality ^

. control inpsector qualification records-: contained waiver letters that were dated after the date off

~

c certification. .This is contrary.to thetBALQuality.

1 Control Training-Qualification Manual..

I ~ g) One~ instance was identified in~which a BA Technical' l Services 1 inspector ^had not'been.recertified at the;

, specified'three year interval. LThis is'contraryJto-

. BA-Technical Services Procedure BTS 307.

I h) Three instances were identified in which i BA Technical Servides personnel..were initially j certified without meeting'the minimum certification-requirements and whose waivers'were dated

i. significantly later.- This is contrary to the BA i Technical Services Procedure BTS 411. l 1 ,

9 l'

[ i i

'. _ . . . . - - - , ..-[, , -.e.,.,,%_.,---,,..O-,o -,.,~J_. ,w--.e,..,--.,--,-,. .-,.,,,e.yc .s.m., , . , ~ , - . ,,,,re+-e

.m s .

a ' '

3; ': a ' , , "'

4 CRITERION V (continued)l

^ '

i)E OneVinstance was Hidentified :in l which' 'the . Zack -

_ JCompany'certifiedJa-QC_ inspector'who did not meet' -

the; minimum qualification requirements:of its-

procedure-CB-FQCP-11, Revision 3. '

j) The BA'_ Technical Services Training' Manual was not reviewed at least1 annually.by the Manager of-

' Technical. Services or his designee, c k) Ten. instances were identified:in which UST-certified QC. inspection. personnel prior to completing a' proficiency evaluation. -This is contrary to UST Procedure UST-TQ-1 1 -i

.1) Seventeen instances were identified in which UST QC inspectors qualification. records. contained no evidence of-indoctrination and training in accordance with either Illinois' Power' Company (IPCo) Procedure QAI-310.01sor-QAI-710.01.

m) One instance was identified in which UST' certified-a QC inspector who.did not meet the minimum qualification requirements of its procedure-UST-TQ-1.

} _

n) One instance was identified in which a visual weld inspection was performed by UST QC inspectors not certified to perform visual inspections. This is contrary to IPCo procedures QAI-310.01 and QAI-710.01, and UST Procedure UST'(CL) - QAP-1.

(82-18) 1 0

i F

ia f

e - m-- r ,,,-++=,+-~e we, +ve-<-nwr- wee-r- r -w..--et-, e- -- ,,---++rw--rwe -e- v ,--e ,ew,---=--,-ey w-wwy-e+---

• p

= < -

1 3,

, e b_t k 4z *" > # j p.e -- -p, (

-- / un 3 p-c ,

, 'h '

, CRITERION 1Vi(continued)1 4

I' s G . A

~"

__ .8) The Licensee Plant--Staff performed ~a' recirculation,

~ chemical? check,: and dump test 1 of a' Radwaste: Surge : Tank . System

without;the use of!an applicable procedure.1 (82-14);

L9)~ . ' Quality control Inspectors ~ failed to follow procedures,-

by accepting 12. incorrectly marked-(color 7 coded) Class IE .

electrical cables. Inspection ' checklists and-Cable Pull' Cards

were incorrectly accepted for_ the; installed (pulled): cables. -

(81-25) .

- 10)- -QC inspectors failed to follow procedures,1by-accepting

~ twelve ~ incorrectly narkedK(color. coded) Class 1E electrical cables. Inspection checklists and Cable Pull Cards'were-incorrectly accepted for.the installed (pulled), cables.-(81-24)'

11) Procedures for an' interaction analysis program were not implemented,-inLthat, _ monthly identification tours'and design engineering-analysis were not being performed. Drurther, Quality-Assurance: notified IP management of failure to implement.the ~

program, and prompt corrective action had not.been taken. (81-24)'

- 12) a) Adequate procedures had not been. developed,;in that Baldwin Associates Procedures' 3.3.2, Revision 8, did = not address n the minimum quantitative or qualitative acceptance Jeriteria for:

raceway' prior to pulling cables, nor did it addressJthe acceptanco criteria 1to be used in resolving!the discrepancies noted on the pre-pull walk down of the. raceway. .

b) Appropriate procedures had not been developed.to. -

provide adequate assurance that_ cables previously pulled into incomplete raceways will not be damaged when work is resumed on the raceway. (81-20)

13) Zack Company did not prepare a trend analysis for'the Clinton site for January 1981, even though-thirteen Nonconformance Reports were prepared at the Clinton site,.during:

January 1981, for nonconforming conditions pertaining to drawing M14-118-6. (81-18)

14) Activities affecting quality were not accomplished.in accordance with prescribed instructions, in that the electrical

^ fabrication shop was not' inspected daily. Specifically, from February through June 1981 only seven daily inspection of'the electrical fabrication shop were made. (81-15) 0 1

4

7 g% - -

. 4

.. d

, .s 4 1 ..

a - t d b ., "i -

~

sc . , ,

[I CRITERION v,(continued}- s

- 4

~ ^

n . . .,

The procedures established to assure that conditions-;

11 5 )' ,

adverse to quality.are4 identified and> documented.are notibeing

,followed. : For example, Lyotential1NCRs.:were being " stifled" since

~

supervisors canetake: unilateral' action-to cancel a; proposed NCR. '

.(81-15).

i

. L16). Daily inspectionnzin the fabricationfarea.of activities:

.;affecting quality were'notjperformed.f(81-15): ,

, , 17) . Handling and. installation'of Residual Heat Removal Pump;

,.ColumnLAssembly:wasiperformed without applicable detailed written procedures.or; instructions.c(81-12) >

1 8 ) 1 1 T h e : e l~e c t r i c a l i contractor'sLPower Generation Control 1

. Complex (PGCC) interconnecting cable pulling activities were not; accomplished in accordance with paragraph 5.2.1(f)-of/BA' .

'ProcedureJ3.3.7.c (81-09).

19) a')~Hangerfinstallation and inspection; tolerance. '

, -procedure-was incomplete in that it:did not, cover all areas

.necessary to; ensure proper ~ installation.and QC. acceptance inspection. -

b)' specific. instructions for installing mechanica1C snubbers was lacking.

j c) The procedure for- installing the: penetration -

j.

seismic guides was lacking. (81-05)' "

i. .

20) la) In the area of pipe supports and restraints, 8 of r the'9 safety related and installed hangers,~ struts, and snubbers observed by the inspector did not conform to the construction t

drawing requirements.

1 b) Reactor Water Cleanup pipe penetration seismic 4

j guide inside the guide pipe did not conform to the design drawing  ;

j; clearance requirement. (81-05) t f 21) a) The document which acknowledged the receipt of~the electrical ~ penetration primary header plate bolts was not revised ~

\

to' reflect the return of these bolts to Conax for rethreading.  ;

4 Conax Corporation electrical penetrations were 1

b) shipped to the licensee and a Certificate of Compliance was t transmitted in lieu of complete documentation without prior- t i

written authorization.

j if i.

I t

! i i

. . - - 4 -

p ~1 V w --

Jg -

m

s ,

q-4

. y s ;j #

~

• c

• y ,

._ ~

.p. _

~

,t2 i

. CRITERION'V c('ontinued)'

f21)~ .c) 3 electrical penetrations 1and11 electricall ' '

m.'switchgear were not placed~oni" Conditional Accept" status nor were conditionallaccept tags attached as required ~by BAP-2.3. .

(81-05) >

22) ' Installation ofitheuinclined 'fuelitransfer tube was. >

' performed using the containment-polar ~ crane beam?as,a load. .

Architect-Engineer : approval was not obtained.<

~

- ' carrying support.

(80-23)

Completed travelers did not i contain the welders I~

23) .

identification and the weld material. heat / lot number as required.

by BTS 402._(80-19) e n

24) '250 ' containment? rebar ~ cadweldsi were installed out 'of their normal position and without:followinglthe Installation:

instructions. (80-16) s

+

25) 38 HVAC. hangers in:the'800': level of the-Control Building were installed incorrectly and'in' disagreement.withLthe ,

di'sposition' instructions'of NCR ~ 3030.;(80-16) 26)',The licensee failed:to follow procedures and-instructions in the~ implementation'of the welding requirements of '

f- the' control; rod drive housing to'the reactor-vessel-bottom head ,

penetration..(80-14)

27) Non-safety related electrical' cable:was stored with-electrical cable identified as safety-related cable'. (80-11)

28) A 3" hole was cut in Reactor Building' drywall without aproved prescribed procedures, traveler,~or design change.

(80-10) 4

29) Approximately 11 testing personnel' were certified to:

Level I or Level II that did not meet the experience .

requirements. (79-11/79-01)

30) Test procedure MN>-1 does not appear to meet the intent of ANSI. (79-11/79-01)'

, 31) Inspector identified and licensee acknowledged several structural components with bent (damaged) clip-angles that were ,

. stored with acceptable items without being identified-with JV-77 tags. (79-06)

S I -

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

7 - - . _

J-p >

C ,

CRITERION Vi(continued)

^"

~ .

232)JActivitisa affecting quallLy.wers.noLLprescribedsby

' documented instructions and procedures-in that there weretnoi

' documented instructions or: procedures for the. automatic resistance spot ~ welding.E(78-06) 1

~

33) a)- Instruction-No. 5 of ERICO procedure no. RB20M73' has not been complied with for vertical 1 sleeves at 'the site.

b) A containment cadweld was found to have a porosity of 360* at the top.end of the sleeve ~,Lalthough_it had.been-inspected and accepted by the licensee's agents. -(78-05) 34). Welding : Code' commitments dif fer between PSAR and w'o rk specifications. (77-11). ,

35) Procedures were not followed-relative to'a nonconformance report concerning damage to;a weld. prep area on a containment penetration.- (77-09)

36) Some of the Unit 1 containment penetrations'andeanchor

- bolts for one offthe RHR pumps were not protected in accordance.

with work procedures.'(77-06/77-04)

37) Inadequate QC inspector procedures. (77-02)

38) Failure to follow established work procedures.

, (77-05/77-03) 39)

Procedures and documentation for quality control inspection of concrete placements were inadequate. (76-06)

CRITERION VI - DOCUMENT CONTROL Contrary to criterion VI:

1) Changes and current revision to electrical drawings were not being used. (81-05)

2) Licensee failed to provide measures for obsolete or superceded documents against inadvertent use, in.that a superceded: calibration instruction No. 009, had not been replaced in BA OAM. (80-02)

3) Documents were inadequately controlled. (77-02)

, l l

l L

7 ,

N^

Si CRITERION VII

• CONTROL'OF' PURCHASING MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND ..

s yb 2 SERVICES-

- Contrary lto. Criterion VII:

Measures were not established to assure-conformance to

~

1)

-procurement. documents, incthat,:the NRC. inspector identified the following conditions!onnembedded plates accepted.by,the-fabricator and in storage on-site (4 examples are given).

,(80-06)

2) Non-shrink grout has"been issued'for use in both safety and non-safety areas without--written certificates of' _

conformance. (79-06) /

p CRITERION VIII - IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF MATERIALS,

~

PARTS,AND COMPONENTS Contrary to Criterion VIII:

1) .Non-traceable steel plate material *is installed in some electrical hanger. assemblies in the Auxiliary,. Diesel'Cenerator, and Control Buildings. Traceability'and identification transfer during fabrication appears-to uncontrolled. QC has not assured the recording of traceability identification of the subject-steel

plate in all cases. (81-03)-

CRITERION IX - CONTROL OF SPECIAL PROCESSES Contrary to Criterion IX:

1) Four lugs.were not impact tested as required. (84-15)

2) The following examples of inadequate control of a special process were identified:

a) A concrete wedge expansion anchor was welded to a pipe support plate, b) Wire was inserted in the holes of three concrete' wedge expansion anchors, c) Numerous abandoned anchor holes were improperly patched, d) The anchor bolts and abandoned holes violated minimum space requirements. (83-22)

3) .The Contractor was performing stainless steel welding .

operations using oversized electrodes (5/32") and unmarked wire brushes, discs, chisel and chipping hammers. (81-22) 11-4 e-* ---- y m y*q* - *

.. , - - - - . ~ ,

NV  ;

\ > , ,5 _

s

• ^

.CRITERI'ON IXL(continued))

f4)_ : Welding was?not'beingfaccomplished$1n/accordance1with'

. applicable codes, in that, controlled welding? procedure, '

specifications with the. associated welding.' parameter sheetsiwere ' ..

not -located at; the prescribed activityf (welding) .: .(81-05). -

N-5). A 12"liftTof concrete,wa's poured in;the' Category:I

. Diesel Generator BuildingifloorLwithoutisandblast, cleaning and'

' removal of . the . curing ? compound from the construction; joint; .'

surface.-(81-03) '

, -Q

~

~6))

InstrumentsJneed'calib' ration.' l(80-12)" ,

7)' :Approximately 2,000~ temporary' attachments:such as-

' scaffold' brackets, gussets,Detc.,;have beenjwelded to the drywell liner and containment liner without the controls required; ifor-safety related equipment. Welds did not haved' proper:

' document'contr'ol. QC' inspection and-NDEJwerefnot performed or' documented. (80-20)

8) _ 4 of 5 : Zack working: welder interviewed"were not: aware

'of=the location of.their~ weld procedures nor were they.'awareLoft

-its. basic contents. (80-08)'

9) The inspector established that weld bead' width ofJa.

fill pass on weld no.:A3 on traveller no. B33-5001-A, was between used. 21/32" to 22/32' wide and'1/8"l diameter electrodes were (80-07)'

10) Zack Welding Procedure' Specification was qualified to

. wrong part of American Welding' Society.Section 5. (79-06)

11) Failure..to control welding in that an' essential variable was changed without the requalification of~ welding procedure' specification and performance' qualification of:the-welders. (78-06)

12) The procedure requalification performed was qualified as a welding procedure rather than's brazing procedure. (78-06) 13) aa)22' quid Li specifies Penetrant F low' Examination temperature (PT)-Procedure on the part.when performing >

PT. The procedure qualification did not. state'that the PTE

i. materials were at 22*F when the procedures was. qualified as j required by ASME Section III and-V. .(78-05) -

b) Unqualified personnel were performing PT examinations on safety related pipe welds. ' ,

i I---

%p:M ~  ;; g. . >

l

- N , ,

~* B [, '

^^

W '

W 1:&, 1 + -A

't, " -

- , i m

7 4 - + .

% ~ ~

y s -Q G w ~ -

w .; . -~~

'2 v'!

, s m sy ,

~

l ' ,.

, . &L . . .

~

1CRITERIONJIXL(continued); 1 ,

l J13)f{c)t "Several'NDE[personnellcertifications~ reviewed didl

, ' G" inotidocument! previous :NDE experience'.= -( 78-05 )'

~ '

2 w ,

[

- - . q14); _iThree! welds.wereldocumentedYas; repair ~weldsiwhenlthey* ,

.were)not~repairlwelds,5andithe1three.new' welds were: accepted

_ ;without1benefitn of=ther specifled(nondestructive' -

testing.a(78-05); .

4 Welding of-.containmentiliner plate wais being' performed 1 ' ".

~

1'5 )  :

(77-01) lwhen the ambient' temperature wasjbelow'0*F.

< CRITERION X"- INSPECTION ~-

. l Contrary 1to: CriterionjX: '

, 'k , _-

1) Instructions,: procedures, or drawingsidid 'not require -

thatimeasurements1be performed forLall 2":andrunder pipe' bends (toi assure that-the bends >were:in compliancefwithithe 8% ovality.

- tolerance. 1. Consequently,isufficient' records 1were=notJavailablea to furnishTevide'nce ofLacceptablO bent pipe.~(83-15)-' .

w

2) LA program for inspection <of activities affecting- .,

quality was-not properly executed 1as demonstrated:by NRC-findings ' '

1 which had not been identified'byJthe license: e'

• I

' Hanger E28-10b3-03A-H15', the as-built drawing." indicated.

~

a)

-that detail:DV-3 was used to install the 42 horizontalJ to vertical. connection.while the traveler indicates that detal.DV-23A was used to:make this connection.- '

j b) . Hanger.E28-1000-03A-H12,-the traveler documentation

_ pac k age was is gne d -off'as.being acceptable _by'the licensee. The records package was not complete in that.,

l the history prior to as-building this. hanger was j missing. This situation was-also identified for 5

! other hangers. Also,1the as-built drawing indicated ' .

that detail DV-9 was used to install the cable tray' attachments while the traveler indicates that' detail- '

.DV-8A(H) was used. '

\ <

1 l ^'. c) Hanger E28-1400-R8, Deficiency Report (DR) 3614 was missing from the traveler package and.was.not _ .

referenced on the traveler as required by procedures. l I d) Hanger E30-1.003-01A-H68, Nonconformance Report (NCR)

7933 was missing from the traveler package

and was not.

l referenced.on'the traveler'as required by-procedures.

i.

l l

[ e n --++,--y--4,,,+ry , + , b. . - - - ___me,m r w,N.-e.-w w w.,,,,.-e w.-, ,% % , - , v ,n w,,w,.rw-we%.wm.,,,,,..w,-,-~

s- n:, g 6 d

?[gp

+ '

s s , - . ,

1R, E TEj

• E L , g- _ sy;z s bd-ia-

'l ,

~, ',

.1 l7 ,

• 3 ,

• ^

, , , , .  ?

-1

[ w. 3.

m 5 '. "

• f: CRITERION.Xi(continued)

• e: . .

' % e) . ~

' Hanger!E30-1003-02A-H18,EtheJas-built-drawing indicates: -

.* 'that detail?DV-8-was,used for"connectionL92:and2 detail ~

DV-43 was.used for-connection 1#3., The-attachment <

traveler indicatesLthat detail"DV-8 wasiutilised'for.

v: * ,

both" connections'.- ,

3 Je f)L ' Hanger E05-1038-RB2, a.reviewEof DR 2243' indicates,;that  ?

the ' disposition? had : not been-~ implemented. . TheS heati ,,

n - number"on 'the inspectionichecklist' had not been

• corrected in~accordancefwith-the:DR. disposition. g

, "g)I lHangerE26-1003-01A-H8, thetas-built l drawing; indicates g

,theat detail DV-53A was-used to make the= attachment connections. LThe attachment l traveler indicates that.a *-

L'l DV-9 detail was utilised:to make.the7 connection. ', ,

y (83-02)-

3) a) ExistingIhanger{ inspection-program'wasTinadequate'in ~ s that;it did not: provide for, timely: inspections to identify' g. -a deficiencies and to initiate ' corrective ' actions to : prevent.

recurrence, and;it did not" distinguish'the' inspection requirements for-each' phase.of hangerLinstall,ation.'

~

b) . The travelleroQC acceptance provision forzthe pipe penetration seismic guide was' inadequate in that it did not- ~ '

provide'fer inspection measurements after component-installation. '( 81-05 ).

4) a) Zack QC incorrectly: verified:the faulty installation of"38 safety-related HVAC hangers in the 800'-level ofLthe control Building.

b). Inspection records of.the subject HVAC~ hangers-do not reflect ongoing or completed ~ work' installations. Records do not reflect current hanger component interchangeability status.-

(80-16) i k

I 4

l 5' -

.jg..

h

fri * -

n ,

O [

CRITERION Xl(continued) l i

-5) The. inspector established.that therinside diameter of weld.no. 1-RH-9-2 exceeded 1/32" around the joint at-several. '

places,.and 'that 2 spots 180* apart, the: interval mis-match was -

1/16" and 3/32" and that personnel from the' Technical Services department inspected and accepted this joint on 4-23-80. (80-07)

6) a) Inspection failed to identify-reinforcing steel that was inadequately secured in place.to prevent displacement-by construction loads or placing of concrete.

b) Inspection failed to provide adequate number of QC inspection personnel.

c) _ Testing lab did not provide for' temperature monitoring of the. field curving facility. (80-09)

7) Containment reinforcing steel bars was installed and wired in place even though they had gaps in excess of 2 3/4 respectively. (78-05) i CRITERION XII - CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT Contrary to Criterion XII:

1) Licensee failed to asure that internal concrete vibrators ,

meet the 8,000 vibrations per minute required by IPC Construction specification. (79-03)

2) Failure to establish measures to assure that gauges and instruments used with the automatic resistance spot welding unit. (78-06)

CRITERION XIII - HANDLING, STORAGE AND SHIPPING Contrary to criterion XIII:

1) Physical and environmental protection from nearby construction activity wasn't provided for 5 installed Class IE Electrical Cabinets and numerous precut, coiled, temporarily stored Class 1E Electrical Cables. (81-25)

2) Physical protection was not provided for installed Class IE electric cable DC03D, thereby resulting in damage from ongoing HVAC construction activity. (81-24)

[AW * ': .

p - *

,z fr'>l + 'l,' c:

s .

,, ,# 7, m

'b f- .

L ,-

.'l . c'

,}

• > ~ ,

,, n nw sc , , 4 a ,

} ' "

,,y N .

(CRITERION XIII$(contLinued)1 % ,

frx

^

1.: . '

0 TheLfollowing9 examples;were observed:'

~

l3)- , . .

,u ;p ~ u

'T a); Improper l storage,of pipe,fstructural and electrical' j1s ,

materiale. . .. . , ,

9

' Improper;segregationTof? safety;andlnonsafety-related.

'b);

g , material. 1' .

O ,

~

c). . Improper weatherproofing of the1RNR Heat Exchanger m

. insulation'. . '

d*

.d) Improper housecleaning..

r 1

t(81-08) '

? -

+ >

4)l The ; inspector. established that sandwichesE were. .beingi -

atored'on the top shelf;of:a' rod oven,clocated at thel welding '

l materialistation No.'.4. .(80-07) p ,s

~

5); . Requirements for the' preservation and maintenanceiof- 4 5

4

' equipment removed from the' warehouse andTatored in' place.or ..

installedJin the plant:are not addressedLin Procedure BAP 2.~4:

" Storage and Maintenance".. (80-06). '

c

, m;

6) . Failure to develop procedure to assure protection, .

cleanliness'and integrity of stainless steel drywelliliner during ,

construction activities.' Conditions adverse'to quality such'as!

4 splatter of' concrete and accumulation of pools of' water.in' aide: +

the<drywell. -(78-05) '

• 7) Some cadwelds installed . on - the containment ' drywell! wall.

, were.found:to be..either unprotected or.~ inadequately ~ protected 4 (they contained water, rust, debris) and/or the require identification' cap plugs were missing'or defective. Crucibles and other cadwelding devices were observed to be stored exposed.

to rain and' weather within the rebar~ frame work. (78-05)

8) Piping was observed stored in the outside laydown' area with inadequate protection-'on.the pipe ends. (77-10)~ ,

CRITERION XIV - INSPECTION, TEST, AND OPERATING STATUS Contrary to XIV:

1) , Measures were not properly established to preclude '

inadvertent bypassing of inspections, in that, anchor bolts'and straps used to hang. electrical conduit were , torqued to prescribed values and painted green to indicate that they had-been inspected and accepted prior to installing the conduit which requires loosening the~ anchor. bolts without benefit of'

- re-torquing and re-inspection.

16-4

• 3 ( t 1 l ' 'i

.  % y (

I

-CRITERION XV'- NONCONFORNING MATERIALS, PARTS, OR' COMPONENTS- . y i

$ Contrary toiXVI ,

y

.- -1)' The 'dispositioniin ' response .'to Deviation Report Number

'3239 was.found to be. inadequate;inHthatiitistates." written in' error", when~in' fact it.was'a. valid' deviation. . LThis response did not< identify.the cause,1 resolution,<or the' corrective action to-prevent recurrence ~for.the identifiedLdeviation..(83-23)'

c

2) Back Nonconformance. Report.No..sc-CB-325, preparedLon December 12, 1980, was closed'by the zack;tompany on March 13, 1981, and:was never forwarded.to Baldwin Associates for-review by.

'the consulting engineers-(Sargent,&'Lundy).- . Additionally, the nonconforming items _were never individua11y'~ tagged to identify:

the duct pieces as being nonconforming. .The NCR pertained to the qualification of.zack welders performing. butt' welds. (81-18)

'3) Nonconformance Report No.14055 was dispositioned "use as is".and closed without reinspection to determine that the cable for radiation monitoring equipment had been enclosed in condiuit rather than being dispositioned " rework" Land being '

reinspected befope being closed. (81-15) ,

4) Inspector found the zack Company reject / hold area to be in disarray,.the enclosure dismantled, and unauthorized ~ scrap-within its bounds. Also found, rejected material with no status identification and with no record as to its location. 3 The Zack Reject /NCR tags and logs did not indicate the location of the non-conforming material.'(80-08)

5) The handling of.non-conformance reports were not in ."

accord with established procedure. (77-06)

6) Non-conforming items were not identified. (77-02).  ;

CRITERION XVI - CORRECTIVE ACTION Contrary to XVI:

1) BA QC incorrectly invalidated NCR 15334 on the basis of a subcontractor memo, thereby' bypassing the specified NCR r.anagement corrective action reviews and ASME Code requirements..

(84-04)

2) a) BA failed to document a known nonconforming ,

condition relating to the degradation of the' paint / coating in the '

upper oil resevoir of the thrust bearing housing ~of-LPCS pump moter, despite the fact that the vendor had begun analysis and resolution of this condition.

)

_.e.+,,- -. , , - . - # ,,v.-w,-w-.-,.,--,,.,%-,we.---...m%w..,,,.g,.. .,.,-.,..---.,,+.-...-,%-...ys., -

y--

Q, s. -'

'  ?  ;

' . .n -

, + - ,

' .. i

.^ W , pj " 'q' 4

^

/ CRITERION:XVI'(continued):

g

. . b) . Sargent's'Lundy failed to documentJan? interaction'

~

problem-in the' South. Cable Spreading Room.in that: fire protection ,

' piping;is'in-direct contact with safety related-cable tray' hanger.,;A1contributing' factor is that S&L had;not performed an1 interaction analysis 1walkdown in'this area.for approximately=201 4 . .. months. . - This is the~ fourth occurence in the area of interaction- E

problem identification. (83-23).

. 3)' In. July.1983, chewing gun or a similar substance was

- found smoothed over: or sculptured -in an area of porosity in a ,

.ccatainment Liner-weld seam. Numerous-other weld discontinuities I were also identified at;this time. As of'11-21-83,- the subject of deficiencies had'not been documsnted on.a nonconformance r  : report. _(83-22) 9

4) Corrective action was notladequatefto substantiate the a

work of a former electrical Quality! Control; inspector.. (83-19).

5) Corrective action was not taken'by IP'~in regards to a

! known condition adverse to quality. Incomplete weld inspection and improper code applications on Component Support Pipe Hanger l' ,

i Drawings were not properly identified, documented, reported to

management, and corrected in a timely-manner."(83-12).

l .

. . 6) Neither. prompt'nor effective corrective action.to

,' preclude repetition was taken in response to five audits:and l other tjocuments concerning electrical hanger installation i activities. Also, the licsnsee failed to take prompt corrective

!' action in response to a special QA review of IEEE Environmental  :

and Seismic Qualifications, dated 9-17-80, which identified the l current practice of granting unconditional' acceptance status to i

t components lacking quality documentation.- (81-05)

7) The licensee did not take prompt corrective action tcr

! preclude repetition of nonconformances, in that an excessive i number of NCRs were allowed to occur prior to taking correceive i j

action such as CAR's No. 048, 042, and 040. (807027 4 . i ja

8) Procedures for an interaction analysis program were not implemented, in that, monthly identification tours and design '

engineering analysis were not being performed. Further, Quality  ;

!- Assurance' notified IP management of failure to implement the  :

1 program, and prompt corrective action had not been taken. '

[

(81-24)

F

9) Timely and effective corrective action was not accomplished relative to control and site documents. (77-09) i  ;

h, e

i

~

--..+-,,w. ..,,.-r-.y, y-w -%.wm.c,_--ww *

,w_,,w.g..m. .,y%,m%,r- wm,w e w w. e e . -e em, ._wwwe--e-rg,.w,wm.,m.,w,w-w

D T V

p: W ~ - ' '

E. .

( q, -"^ -

.o

' ~

^

. ~ . .l CRITERION-XVI (continued): -

_. _ . . ; x

' L o dfl

? . . .. . .

W ~

10) " Corrective. measures wereJinadequate.'(77-_02)'-

- , 1 CRITERION XVII ~ ^ QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS _

.ContraryjtoLCriterion XVII :

~

c ,_

11 ) Instructions, procedures, or-dra'wingsEdid not require '

-that measurements be-performed.for,all:2" and under. pipe' bends.to '

assure that the: bends.were<in compliance with the 8% ovality"'

- tolerance. Consequently,' sufficient records were not available to' furnish evidence of acceptable. bent; pipe._:(83-15)

2) Reviews of nonconformance reports, audits,'and. _

surveillances, forLreportability pursuant 1to 10:CFR 50.55(e)-are not being documented to enable verification of-proper review. _

(81-05).

3) Records _inlthe permanent record file are not readily retrievable. (77-01) i CRITERION XVIII - AUDITS Contrary to Criterion XVIII:

Relative to pipe hanger design and installation ._ ' I 1) activities, the licensee audit of the architect-engineer,.the licensee audit and surveillance of contractor site performance,.

and theEcontractor's internal. audits were considered inadequate in that detailed. hanger audit requirements'were absent, problems were not prevented from recurring, and programatic audit planning, scheduling, and implementation was absent for on-going safety related hanger insta11aion and QC inspection activities.

(81-06)

, 2) Applicable elements of the QA program have not been j audited annually, in that, GE Company has been involved 'in

, directing the installation activities of the reactor' internals l' at the Clinton sit.e for greater than one year and has not been l

audited by the licensee. (80-06) l:

i l

t 0

19-1 I

_._....__.___.._,._a_._...._._.,,___s._,. _ _ , ,._ _ _ - _ _ - .. _ _ _ , _

, y ,.

• r r#.

t 6 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

./

^' I hereby certify that an original and two conformed

' copies of the foregoing docyment were' served.upon the following:

,' './

Se6tetary,of thef CommissioY'.,

UniCad States Nuclear Jegularory Commission Washingt6n, D. Q'.7 20553 6

-Attsotion: .Docf.eting ,and S_ervice Branch

, , . and,that one ' copy of /thb foregioing document was served upon each of th6 IF311oding: ,.s. ,

.C' .. ,

e ilugh K. Clark, Chairman v '

-' Post Office Boag 127A f Kennedyville, 'naryland 21647 .

< ,s

.~%

.m Dr. George-A'. Ferguson ~*s, School of Engineering' '- l'

• y' Howard University Streat, '&N.

2300 Sixth i ,

",.. Washington, D. C. '26ii39 l, '.

4.

Dr. O; scar H. Paris 2 Atomic Safety 'and Licensin's Board

~ '

,0 3. Nuclear Regulatory Cbmmission

< Qashington,r.

D. C. .20555...g

',. *w

- Richard'J. Goddard' .J _

s dffice of Executive Legal Mrector

' tInited States Nuclear Rsfalatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

. Sheldon A. Zabiti Charles D. Fox IV "'

,/

Schiff Hardin & Waite

• 7200 Sears Tower 4 233 South Uccker Drive -

e Chicago, Illinois 60606 s ,>

Jean Foy -

Q

- ~ -

511 West Neva4A e 9tbana, Illinois 61803 ~>"

' George L. Edgar l

Maurice Axelrod

Newman k Holzinger 1615'"L" Street, N.W. -

l i Scite 1000 '

Washington, D.C. 20636 ef "

i , s, ,  ; ,, % -

o g [

s,.,. a / ,

• 4 (

d ,

t' .

l

~ ~

T[ '" (,; 9 -

[ /3^ ' - l j;, 7<; -

~

b. .  % , - p ^:7.

s

-l

.y i LAtomic Safety and(Licensitig; Board. Panel-

~

m '

, (U.;S. Nuclear; Regulatory Commission-2 Was tning ton , - D . C . - 20555 1 Atonic' Safety and Licensing =

Appeal Board-Pane 1- .

U.- S. < Nuclear: Regulatory Commission.-

Washington,;D'.iC.~ 20555J in-each case';by' deposit in the United States? Mail', postage: -

' prepaid on. November 15,-19_84.-

p. 2 r, L'n @ }^

        .3                                             -

Allen Samelson. '

                                                                       . Assistant Attorney General-
                                                                        . Environmental Control Division Of Counsel:                                                          i -
                         -Greig R'. Siedor.

Assistant Attorney General- . EnvironmentalLControl Division 500 South Second Street

                          ' Springfield ' Illinois '62706-

(217) 782-9030 l

i i l l P I

i l'

_ . . - _ ,  ; _ . ..__ _..__.... _ _ _._.. . __ _'M'

s , r u n y [/h UJITED STATES OF AMERICA DCUCE3 fi HUGLE.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ IN THE MATTER OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et al ) "" '

                                             ~        )

(Operating License for ) Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 ) Docket No. 50e4610L

                                                     )

NOTICE TO: Hugh K. Clark, Chairman Post Office Bor 127A Kencadyville, Maryland 21645 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University 2300 Sixth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20059 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear D. Washington, Regulatory C. 20555Commission Richard J. Goddard Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. United States Suclearn Regulatory Commissio 20555 Sheldon A. Zabel Charles D. Fox IV Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Chicago, Illinois Drive 60606 Jean Foy 511 West Nevada Urbana, Illinois 61808 ' George L. Edgar Maurice Axelrod Newman & Holzinger i ' 1615 "L" Street, N.W. . Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Usshington, Regulatory D. C. 20555 CommissionAtomic Safety and .

                                                                                            ~

7 b' f - R

                     -                                                                                             l Atomic Safety and Licensing
        ,                 Appeal Board Panel U. S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have filed with the Secretary of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission STATE OF ILLINOIS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES in the above-captioned matter.               A ~ copy of this document is attached hereto and hereby served upon_you.

(~.

                                                         ,     4?       [bbi Allen Samelson Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division of Counsel:

Greig R. Siedor Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217)-782-9030 Dated: November 15, 1984 l l y ,,m. m y..- , -}}