ML20127K720
| ML20127K720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-589 OL, NUDOCS 8506270551 | |
| Download: ML20127K720 (13) | |
Text
I6%
o.
%TED 6/24/85 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON 11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 08tKETED USMC In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445 o
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC N 26 Pl2:01 COMPANY, ~et al.
(Application for an cr ncauw (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Operating Liciense)lM '. 9Fi Station, Units 1 and 2)
DW1 CASE'S INTERROCATORIES TO APPLICA!frS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE l
kEt THE MAC REPORT AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE MAC REPORT Pursuant to the attached 6/13/85 Motion for Discovery Regarding the MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report, please answer the following interrogatories and requests for documents in the manner set forth herewith:
1.
Each interrogatory should be answered fully in writing, under oath or af firmation, and should include a sworn statement of the truthfulness of the answer, signed by the specific individual who answered and has personal knowledge of the matter under discussion.
2.
Each interrogatory or document response should include all l
l pertinent information known to: Applicants, their officers.
l l
directors, or employees, their agents, advlants, or counsel.
l (The term " Applicants," as it always han, includce all owners of Comanche Peak, not just the primary own r.)
The term "employeen" is to be consti ind in the broad mense of i
the word, including specifically (but not letted to):
Brown and I
Root, Gibbe & Hill, Ebanco, Cygna, O. M. Cannon, any consultants, i
I 3
7 i
sub-contractors, and anyone else performing work or services on behalf of the Applicants or their agents or sub-contractors.
3.
The terms " documents" and " documentation" shall be construed in the broad sense of the words and shall include any and all writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reports, studies, audits, microfische, slides, internal memoranda, informal notes, i
handwritten notes, tape recordings, procedures, specifications, calculations, analyses, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained.
Include print-outs of any and all such information which is contained on computer discs or in computerized files or similar files.
l The term " documents" shall also include any and all contracts, letters of understanding, letters of intent, pur;hase t
orders, statement of protocol, statement of scope, any and all t
other related or similar documents, and all other pertinent L
information.
4.
Each document provided should include a sworn statement of its i
authenticity, signed by each specific individual who answered and I
has personal knowledge of the document.
5.
Answer each interrogatory in the order in which it is askee, i
numbered to correspond to tbs number of the interrogatory.
Do not i
combine answeis.
i 6.
Identify the person providing each answer, response, or document.
7.
These interrogatories and requests for documents shall be l
t continuing in nature, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(e) and the prat 2
h
directives of the Licensing Board. Because of the time restrictions under which we are presently working, we request that 1
supplementation be made on an expedited basis.
8.
For each item supplied in response to a request for documents, identify it by the specific question number to which it is in response.
If the item is excerpted from a documment, identify it also by the name of the document. Please also provide the copies in the correct order (rather than in reverse order).
CASE'S INTERROCATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE i
CASE has attempted not to request information which has already been i
provided. However, if ary information which is requested has already been i
provided, please indicate the date of the cover letter by which such information was provided.
1.
On page 2 of Applicants' S/29/85 cover letter, it is stated that the l
HAC Report was discovered "in gathering data for a prudence audit being performed for TUEC," and other relevant details are given.
Provide the following regarding such prudence auditI (a) What company / companies or organisation(s) is/are performing the prudence audit?
(b) Provide the name (and company /organisation and title) of each individual who is performing such prudence audit for the company /organisation in (a) preceding.
(c) What organisations affiliated with Applicants (7081, Brown &
Root Ebasco, pSE, etc.) are involved with such prudence audit, and what is then extent of their involvement?
r (d) Provide the name (and organisation and title) of each l
individual with each of the organisations in (c) preceding
(
who is primarily or actively involved with such prudence audit.
f b
t
F l
l (e) What is the purpose of such prudence audit?
(f) Who (name, organization, title) determined the purpose and scope of such audit?
If such individual (s) consulted with others, provide the name, organization, and title of each such person.
Include in your answer a brief discussion of how it was decided that such an audit was to be performed, the scope of such audit, what role each individual played in making such decisions, etc. (i.e., how the whole process evolved).
(g) How was it determined which organization / individual would perform the audit; and who (name, organization, title) made such determination?
(h) Are there any other local, state, or federal governmental bodies or agencies involved in any way with such audit (including, but not limited to, receiving copies of such audit, being updated on the progress of the audit, reviewing draf ts and/or commenting on such audit, etc.)?
(i) If the answer to (h) preceding is yes, supply complete details regarding who (name, organization, title) is involved, specifics regarding the manner and extent of such involvement, etc.
l (j) When was the prudence audit first conceived, at whose (name, l
organization, title) instigation was it conceived, how far l
along is the audit, and when is it anticipated that the audit will be completed?
(k) For what purpose (s) will the prudence audit be used by Applicants?
(1) What changes have been made, are being made, are anticipated, or will be made as a result of findings or concerns of the prudence audit? Give specific and complete details, including but not limited tot each such finding or concern, when each such finding or concern was identified, by whos (name, organisation, title) each was identified, when and by whom the dociaton was made to make each such change, when each such the chango was actually begun and when it is anticipated it will be completed, etc.
(m) Which other audits, reports, analyses, etc., were reviewed or will be reviewed by prudence auditors in connection with the prudence audit?
(n) Which other audits, reports, analyses, etc., were reviewed o.-
will be reviewed by prudonce auditors which may not be appitcable to the prudence audit but which may be applicable or discoverable regarding other matte rn (than prudence) at isnue in the operating license hearings for CpMP.57 4
i
1 (o). Were any other audits, reports, analyses, etc., identified which will be included in prudence audit? If so, provide complete details.
(p) Are any of the companies working on the prudence audit contracted now or in past with Houston Lighting & Power, Brown & Root or its parent company, Halliburton? If so, provide complete details.
(q) Are any of the companies working on the prudence audit contracted now or in past with Texas Utilities or any of its contractors, sub-contractors, agents, etc.1 If so, provide c,aplete details.
(r) For each of the companies in answer to (p) and (q) above, provide copies of all contracts, purchase orders, letters of understanding, letters of intent, statement of protocol..
statement of scope, any and all other related or similar documents, and all other pertinent information.
(s) Provide copies of all documents (in the broad sense of the word, as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding your answer to items (a) through (r) preceding.
Include copies of all drafts of the prudence audit, as well as the final prudence audit itself.
(t) Is this the only prudence audit which has been or is being performed, or which is anticipated will be performed?
(u) If the answer to (t) preceding is no, provide the answers to,
(a) through (a) preceding for each such audit.
2.
(a) Specifically who (name, organisation within TUCCO, title) made the
" search... of insetive and closed corporate files located in TUCC0's Dallas office"? Whose (specifically, both now and at any time previously) office was the report int (b) Specifically who (name, organisation/ company, citte, duties and responsibilities) first identified the MAC Report as being a document which Applicants should have provided in response to CASE's 1980 discovery requesta?
(c) Provide a summary of exactly when, how and by whom the HAC Report was found and the procean by which the determination was made that l
Applicants should have provided it in response to CASR's 1980 discovery requests.
Include specific details as to exactly when each action or event occurred, who (name, title, organisation at the time, current title and organisetton) was involved, etc.
(The type of information we want includes something likes Auditor- (name) with (name) company asked to one all management i
audits which had twen performed regarding Comanche peak.
Recretary (name) brought the auditor a stack of files for review.
S I
Auditor (name) indicated that he/she wanted a copy of the MAC Report and/or that he/she planned to consider and include it in the prudence audit.
(Name), TUCCO (title), and (names) were present at the time Auditor (naae) gave such indication.
(Name),
TUCCO (title) realized that the MAC Report should have been provided to CASE on discovery in 1980, and informed (name, title, organization), who informed (name of attorney, law fira) on (date).
(d) Provide the exact extent of knowledge (attended initial interview regarding MAC Report, attended pre-audit meeting, attended post-audit meeting, received copy of report, knew about report, participated in internal management discussions regarding report, was aware report should have been provided to CASE on discovery, was interviewed by Mr. Wooldridge "in order to determine why the report was not produced in 1980 in response to CASE's first discovery request," etc.) of each of the individuals listed below.
(If the extent of his/her knowledge changed, give specific details as to how, why, in what way, and at what time such change occurred.)
D. N. Chapman R. C. Tolson R. V. Fleck J. V. llawkins J. B. George J. T. Morrit(t)
E. C. Gibson B. J. Hurray J. J. Hoorhead B. C. Scott J. P. Clarke R. Hann
- 11. O. Kirkland U. D. Douglas D. C. Frankum P. Foscolo L. llancock A. Boron A. Vega C. Boggs R. Gary 1
L. Fiker (Fikar) i P. Brittain l
Michael Spence John Harnhall numan Spanent i
llomer Schmidt j
Thoman branilt l
Cordon turdy John Peck Other brown & Root personnol (llat each) 6 l
I
Engineering personnel David Wade, Messrs. Finneran, Iotti, Krishnan, Chang, McGrane, Seevers, any other engineering personnel (list each)
Anyone else interviewed by Mr. Wooldridge (list each)
Secretaries and/or iile clerks for any of the above listed individuals (list each)
Applicants' counsel: Hessrs. Wooldridge, Reynolds, Horin, Dignan, Erle Nye, any other attorneys (list each)
NRC Staff personnelt Messrs. Taylor, Crossman, Stewart, Driskill, Martin, Collins, Seidle, engineering personnel (list each), NRC counsel (list each)
Anyone with the minor owners of Comanche Peak or their agents, consultants, etc. (list each)
Cygna (list each individual)
ANI's (list each individual)
Securities and Exchange Commission l
Public Utility Commission of Texas Any other of Applicants' witnesses who have testified or filed affidavits in these proceedings at any time (list each individual)
Any of Applicants' new (since January 1984) consultants, employees, or agents (list each individual, his/her title and organisation)
(c) For each of the individuals in (d) above who had any knowledge of the MAC Report, provide the following informations (1) ftpecifiently when did he/she first find out about the MAC Report?
If the extent of his/her knowledge changed, specific.sity when did each such change occur 7 (2) llow did he/she first find out about the HAC Report?
(3) Title and organtastion at time he/she first found not about the HAC Reports title and organlaation ne of ilveember 11,19M48 title and organtaation at presenti date of each thange in title and/or Organlantion hetWoon itecember 31,19H4 and the present, (4)
If no longer employed by Appliennts or their agents, provide his/her laat known home and business adirvones and telephone numbers.
d I
(5) Provide a sworn affidavit by each individual that the statements in your answer are true and correct.
(6) Make each individual listed in (d) above or your answer to (d) above available for CASE to take his/her deposition.
(f)
(1) When the MAC Report was first received by Applicants in 1978, what distribution was made of its who received copies of it?
(2) Were copies of the Report distributed to others at a later time? If so, give specific and complete details as to who, when, etc.
(3) What happened to each copy of the report in your answers to (1) and (2) above? Did the individual still have a copy at the time the report was rediscovered during the prudence audit? Did anyone (Mr. Fikar, for instance) confiscate the other copies of the Report? If so, provide specific and complete details as to who, when, etc.
(4) Did anyone (Mr. Fikar, for instance) order the other individuals who were aware of, or had copies of, the Report not to supply them to CASC on discovery or not to advise Applicants' counsel of the Report's existence?
If so, provide specific and complete details as to who, when, etc.
Was there any discussion between or among Mr. Fikar and/or any others listed in (d) or your answer to (d) preceding as to whether or not the Report should be supplied to CASE on discovery?
If so, provide specific and complete details as to who, when, the result of such discunstons, etc.
(S) To whois specifically (name, organisation, title, responsibilities) was Mr. Wooldridge referring when he stated that "TUCCO management le evaluating the fatture to produce this document at an earlier tima..."?
(6) To whots specifically (nama, organisation, titto, responsibilities) was Mr. Wooldridge referring when he stated "We determined that the report was subject to discovery"?
To whnm specifically (name, organisation, titto, responalb(11 ties) was Mr. Wooldridge referring when he stated " current TUCCO manag ment concurred in that view"?
(7) 8pecifica11y who (name, organinition, title, responathilities) did Mr. Wooldridge interview "At the direction of Mr. Spence...to determine why the report was not produced in 1980..."?
M
i i
(8) Specifically who (name, organization, title, i
responsibilities) were the "few members of company I
management" whom Mr. Fiker believed the report was j
solely prepared for?
]
{
(9) Applicants' 6/12/85 letter stated:
"Mr. Fikar further stated that he thus believed that his decision not to I
produce the report was justified. No advice of counsel was obtained at the time regarding the discoverability l
of the report."
[
4 When did Mr. Fikar seek advice of counsel?
Provide details of how, when, by whom (name, f
l organization, title, responsibilities), under what i
circumstances. Applicants' counsel first became aware of i
the Report. Who specifically of Applicants' counsel was 1
first informed of the Report?
i l
l (10) Applicants' 6/12/85 letter states that the interviews 1
indicated or revealed that Messrs. Fikar, Clements, 5
Chapman, and Tolson were aware of the report, and l
provides some detail about the extent of such awareness.
t Did Messrs. Fikar, Clements, Chapman, and/or Tolson ll provide the information about his own awareneus, or was 1
the information obtained through interviews with other
[
individuals?
i
(
(11) Provide a comparison of the time frame when the MAC j
Report was rediscovered during the prudence audit to the I
time when recent changes were made in management (specifically, but not limited to. Messrs. Fikar, t
Clement, Tolson, Vega, Chapman, Purdy).
[
Did any of the changes in management occur as a l
l result of the rediscovery of the MAC Report?
Were any of the changes in management made in whole I
or in part as a disciplinary measuref i
Were any of the individuals whose positions were changed or who were involved in recent management changes of fered the option of resigning, retiring, being reassigned to other duties, and/or having disciplinary
[
action taken?
Provide specific and complete details, regarding each individual.
(12) Were all " inactive and closed corporate files" reviewed 1
in connection with the prudence auditt j
If so, what else was found which may be l
l discoverable?
if not, provide them or access to them for i
inspection and copying.
i 1
i (ii) Do similar active or inactive / closed corporate files esist at 1081, TUtc. TU, Dr&l., Tr&l.. Tl:800, minor owners j
of Comanche l'enk, and/or TUCCo's of fices (either in j
Dallas, other of flesa, or at the plantatte)?
l t
i 9
I 4
1 1
If so, answer all applicable questions herein regarding those files.
If your answer is that you don't know, provide them or access to them for inspection and copying.
j 3.
(a) Applicants' 6/12/85 letter stated:
... Applicants are taking l
steps to assure that no other such documents exist and to assure that a similar situation does not recur."
i Specifically what steps are being taken in this regard, and by whom (name, title, organization) are they being taken?
(b) Appiteants' 6/12/85 letter stated:
"We also will reiterate I
Applicants' obligations in this regard to those who have responsibility to provide information to the NRC and to the parties."
e i
l l
(1) Who specifically will reiterate Applicants' obligations l
in this regard?
l (2) Who specifically (name, title, organization) currently f
has " responsibility to provide information to the NRC j
and to the parties"?
j f
f (3) Who specifically (name, title, organization) in the past l
l had "renponsibility to provide information to the NRC l
l and to the parties"? Specify the time frames during which each such individual had such responsibility.
l l
(4) What is the current criteria for determining whether or i
not documents would be provided to CASE n discovery?
(5) What were the former criteria for determing whether or not documents will be provided to CASE on discovery?
[
L (6) What is the current criteria for determining whether or i
not the NRC (both the Staff and the Licensing Board) will be advised of the existence of, or provided copies of, documents?
[
f (7) What were the former criteria for determining whether or l
i not thn NRC (both the Staff and the Licensing Board) would be advised of the existence of, or provided copies j
of, documents?
(8) Speelfically who (name, title, organisation, dutton) deelded upon much criteria (both past and present)?
l (9) llow do management reviews and/or audite. QA reviews and/or audits, etc., which are performed by consultants (as oppoepd to being part cf Applicants' formalised intern 41 and/or vendor auditing system) fit into l
Applicants' overall system of quality annurance/ quality i
contro11 Include in your annwar (but do not limit your answer to) the followingt I
i L
l
(i) How and where are reports / audits such as this filed 4
and kept? (Answer for both past and present practices / procedures.)
(ii) By whom (name, title, organization) are such reports / audits kept? (Answer for both past and present.)
(iii) What is the system of filing and distributing such reports / audits?
(Answer for both past and present.)
(iv) Provide a copy of the distribution list (all past and present lists) for such reports / audits.
(v) How are the findings and concerns of such reports / audits trended?
(Answer for both past and present.)
(vi) Provide copies of all such trending summaries / reports / analyses, etc.
(vii) Is/was there a listing (computerized or otherwise) of all such reports / audits?
If so, provide a copy of all such listings.
If not, by what means are such reports / audits tracked'or kept up with? What assurance is there that there are not other such reports / audits which
.should have been, but have not been, supplied on discovery to CASE?
(viii) Were, or are, such procedures / practices / criteria proceduralized?,
p If so, provide copies; of all such procedures (past and presint).7 [
If not, what assurance is there that such procedures were or will be followed consistently?
s 4.
'(a) Whose handwritten notes are'shown'in the margins of the MAC Report?
- x...
(
(b) When were s.tch hotes madec.
~'"
(c) The handwritten notes on CASE /s copy df t$
MAC Report were not clear, and in sone instances were run so that part of the notes were off the page.
Provide good, clear copies of all pages with handwritten i
notes.
{'
-7 5.
(a) Have any other ranskement reviews / audits / reports (by whatever name) been performed'regarding Comanche Peek?
(f (b) Have any other reviews /auditr./ reports (by whatever name) been performed regaroing OA/QC at Comanche Peak?
'e 11
,.\\
,. ~ ~.,
"\\
- i V3.
N.
-. -.... ~ --
1[
- - + ~
,1
~
(c) Have'any other engineering reviews / audits / reports (by whatever ndme) been performed regarding Comanche Peak?
(c) Provide copies of any and all such reports referenced in your answdrs to (a), (b), and (c) above.
If such reports have already been supplied, please so indicate.
(d) Provide a list of all consultants which have been hired to do work regarding Comanche Peak, along with a summary of what they were asked to do, how much they were paid, and all other pertinent details.
Provide copies of any and all contracts, letters of understanding, letters of intent, purchase orders, statement of protocol, statement of scope, any and all other related or similar documents, and all other pertinent information regarding each consultant listed.
(If information regarding any of these consultants has already been provided, please so indicate.)
6.
Provide any and all documents (in the broad sense of the word, as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to all of your answers to questions 1 through 5 preceding.
It is CASE's position that all of the documents which we have requested herein should be provided at no cost to CASE, since this entire pleading would not have been necessary had Applicants provided the MAC Report in a timely manner.
If you do not agree with this, please advise at once and we will pursue this matter further with the Licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted, 0 sa
.5, h/_b
- g. s.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound l
Energy) 1426 S. Polk l
Dallas,. Texas 75224 l
214/946-9446 cc:
Service List i
f 12 i
bD 00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD 1T5 JIJN 26 P12:01 In the Matter of
}{
OFFICE OF SECht!!a
}{
00CKETING & SERVICI.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket No. 50-445-1 BRANCH COMPANY, et,al,.
}{
and J-446-1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of Board Notification and CASE's Motion for Discovery Regarding the MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report and CASE's Interroaatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce Re: The MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report have been sent to the names listed below this 24th day of June
,19 8,5_,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
- Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Architecture and Technology
- Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Ge'orgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37330 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
{
e.^
~
,a Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building kashington, D. C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N. k'., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Owen S. Merrill Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer 3022 Porter St., N. W., #304 Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C.
20008 Safeguards (MS H-1016)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas
.75224 Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Docketing and' Service Section (3 copies)
Office of the Secretary C. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kashington, D. C.
20535 inE&. fb ! >
.'.) Juanita Ellis, President
.SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2