ML20136A678
Text
-
- w
_t c L s -c
/,.= anc Io, UNITED STATES w
i f },
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
5 g
s.-
,e
- .=*
MAR 2 0 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
V. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project FROM:
H. H. Livermore QA/QC Group Leader
SUBJECT:
DESIGNATED QA/QC REVIEWERS Your letter of March 15, 1985 requested designated QA/QC reviewers be assigned to each TRT group.
In response, the following members of the QA/QC group are assigned:
Electrical
- Tom Curry Piping / Mechanical
- Rudy Bonnenburg
- Jim Malonson Civil / Structural
- Mark Eli Test Miscellaneous
- Vern Watson
- Vic Wenczel
- In addition, all QC qualification issues will be addressed by Mr. Vern Watson.
The assigned individuals will become familiar with the SSERs of each assigned TRT group as soon as possible.
They will be responsible for the Quality Assurance aspects of all SSERs and future allegations addressed by each and every TRT group. The original TRT group reviewers, (Piping / Mechanical, Electrical, etc.) will remain responsible for follow-up plans and related ASLB proceedings. The designated QA/QC individuals will remain responsible for all original QA/QC SSERs and related proceedings.
I request that the individual members of Piping / Mechanical, Electrical, Test, Civil / Structural, Misc., and Coatings groups extend aid in the form of a crash familiarity work session in order that the subject designees 4
i become familiar with the SSERs as soon as possible.
I also request that the designees accompany the TRT group members to all work sessions, site i
interviews and inspections, and alleger interviews in order that they will be able to extract and address all quality assurance problems in a real-time frame.
Pl lPh%&$6l 86o1020 g BDIll h
3 PNDE
-M c
7.
s.*.
MAR 2 0 1985
-g.
In order to assure that the subject designees will be available (from a contract standpoint) to carry out their functions, I contacted Mr. Chet Poslusny as directed.
Since the designees are now assigned as members of-the other TRT groups and thereby dependent on their continuing services, it is necessary that the Group Leaders include the designees in their contractural requirements at this time.
I have taken the liberty to instruct Mr. Poslusny that the designees' services will be required through July 1985. This, of course, should be reassessed by the respective group leaders.
As you are aware ~, with the assignment of the designees to other TRT~ groups, the TRT QA/QC group no longer exists.
Mr. C. Hale and I remain, but with no clear cut lines of authority or responsibility once the QA/QC SSERs are signed.
I expect you will advise us, with specificity, o' our future function in the TRT.
//.
Yd.
EhtiVL &_
H. H. Livermore QA/QC Group Leader.
cc:
D. Wessman A. Vietti J. Calvo R. Keinig C. McCracken C. Poslusny L. Shao R. Bangart (Region IV)
R. Tang-J. Scinto, OELD
.m
00
.M g
4 ia
,i:.
/
TOPICS - 0A/0C
}
/* /
\\-
'I e
, ; i r.,
(
) e r ' '., >(
..,.. c, /,.. '.,
APPROACH TO QA/0C !SSUES
-/
/
i
- PROGRAMMATIC VS. IIARDWARE ISSUES
[' v -
~~'
,ii[
j
- (,.,(
') p P c
,(
/ </
/
j.
,s.
-t
-INTERFACEWITHOTHERREVIEWTEAMSANDACCOUNTABILfTY
- CURRENTLY DEFINED ISSUES
- t
- CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES
- PROGRAMMATIC o
STATUS OF CURRENT ISSUE SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS l
l WLY96 & i s
J
4 e
on
=-
O MW
=
U Y
$!9 2C wm 43 s
c',
E E
L3 eE
~.
M
.m w
Q M
5 I
E W"
a a
w m
m m
E
. ~ -
j I
h p
u w
w w
3 5
W
>=
a w
d W
\\
g
=
m u
m 1
4
\\
N
.Y-8
= =1.
8 wa mm M
W w
M W
u as -
3W W
8i
- R m
d Y
E N
=
m 5
5
=
E
$E 2
i 5
5 r
8 l
W 5
$=d S-
=.
M.
E e
= 4 W
E 5
m m
W
.5 M
8 2
E 5 $s 5
2 S
E g
. m m
=
5 i
l t
l
--w o
yym,
.=
PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES APPROACH i.
i REVIEW, SUMMARIZE AND ANALYZE IllSTORICAL DATA.
DETERMINE IMPACT ON llARDWARE e
I N0 HARDWARE IMPACT IIARDWARE IMPACT 1
- DETERMINE AREAS WHERE
- RECLASSIFY AS A HARDWARE IMPROVEMENT CAN BE MADE ISSUE AND FOLLOW e
1
]
- MAKE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS INVESTIGATIVE LOGIC PLAN I
~
0A/0C CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES GENERAL APPROACll - IDENTIFIED ISSUES
- UNDERSTAND Tile ISSUE AND IMPLICATIONS 'ON 0A/0C PROGRAM f.
7, /
9/18/84 LETTER
'I
- 11/29/84 LETTER
,./r '
1/08/84 LETTER l'
y ;.
- GATilER ALL PERTINENT DATA
/
fv.I J
n
-ANALYZEDATAANDINSPECTHARDWAREIFRE0li[hED
. BOUND AND QUANTIFY ~ ISSUE,' -
i
- DETERMINE WHEN AND HOW DISCREPANCY OCCURED AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
- EVALUATE FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE
'E,
//
- DETERMINE ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS
- IDENTIFY NEW PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES TilAT REQUIRE EVALUATION
- CATEGORIZE
- INITIAL QA/0C CONTROLS OK J
- INITIAL 0A/0C CONTROLS NOT.0K 6
~
r QA/0C CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES (IDENTIFIED ISSUES) 1 APPROACH - INITIAL 0A/0C CONTROLS OK (DISTURBED SINCE INITIAL INSPECTION)
- DEVELOP A DETAILED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
- SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
- SPECIAL TESTS
- DEVELOP PROCEDURAL CONTROLS i
- RETRAINING APPROACH - INITIAL QA/DC CONTROLS NOT OK
- ADVANCE TO SAMPLE REINSPECTION OF HARDWARE
INTERFACE WITil 0 tiler REVIEW TEAMS
- EACil RTL IS CONDUCTING ANALYSES FOR
- ROOT CAUSE(S)
- GENERIC IMPLICATIONS
- 0A/0C REVIEW TEAM INTERFACE WITH OTilER TEAMS
- PREPARE / REVIEW INSPECTION PLANS AND INSTRUCTIONS
- KEPT INFORMED OF ISSUE PLAN FINDINGS
- ASSIST IN DEFINITION OF ROOT CAUSES AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS WHEN QUALITY IS A CONSIDERATION
- MAINTAIN A TRACKING SYSTEM FOR ALL 0A/0C ISSUES
- PROGRAMMATIC VS. HARDWARE
- ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY OTilER REVIEW TEAMS
- 0A/0C RTL WILL REVIEW ALL SSER'S FOR 0A/0C ISSUES / CONCERNS
APPROACil WILL ENABLE -
SRT/TUGC0 T0 IDENTIFY SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES, CAUSED BY EITHER PROGRAMMATIC OR WORKMANSHIP WEAKNESSES, 7
'~ '
BOUND THOSE DEFICIENCES AND IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES TRAINING / CERTIFICATION / TESTING OF INSPECTORS NON-CONFORMANCE/ DISCREPANCY REPORTING SYSTEMS CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM REPORTABILITY PROCEDURES - 10CFR50.55(E)
QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION MATERIAL TRACEABILITY AND CONTROL' DOCUMENT CONTROL AUDIT PROGRAM AND AUDITOR CERTIFICATION MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT /0VERVIEW 0F QA/0C PROGRAM
-EXIT INTERVIEWS Il00SEKEEPING
~
CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES ASME PIPE SUPPORTS FUEL P0OL LINER' VALVE DISASSEMBLY / ASSEMBLY FABRICATION SHOP CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS HILTI BOLTS e
4
INSPECTOR QUAllFICATION/ CERTIFICATION ISSllES:
ADEQUACY OF SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING~ PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS IN TRAINING / CERTIFICATION FILES.
BACKGROUND:
- 1rf TIME OF CP, TUGC0 WAS COMMITTED TO 10 CFR 50 APP.B.
- PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATED BY EXAMINATION, VERIFIED BY OJT
- 1981 - COMMITTED TO REG. GUIDE 1.58 REV. 1 l
- SAME AS AB0VE PLUS VERIFICATION OF EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
-INSPECTdRS TRAINED AND CERT.IFIED 11) SPECIFIC PROCEDURES / INSTRUCTIONS
- EACH INSPECTOR MAY HOLD MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION i
1 j
ACTION - PilASE I
- TUGC0 AUDIT GROUP REVIEWED TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, RECERTIFICATION FILES FOR:
- ALL ELFCTRICAL INSPECTORS (CURRENT AND PAST)
- NON-ASME INSPECTORS (CURRENT)
ASME INSPECTORS (CURRENT)
- RECENT DECISION BASED ON NRC LETTER DATED 1/8/85
- CONDUCTED BY INDEPENDENT SPECIAL EVALUATION TEAM (SET)
- RESULTS
- TUGC0 AUDIT REVIEWED FILES FOR:
-- 215 INSPECTORS
- 2386 CERTIFICATIONS
- CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY
. FORMS PREPARED FOR EACil INSPECTOR
- EFFORT WAS AUDITED BY SET
- TO BE REVIEWED BY SET i
I
- 133 INSPECTORS
- 270 CERTIFICATIONS i
e-ACTION PLAN - P!!ASE 11
- SPECIAL EVALUATION TEAM
- INDEPENDENT
- MINIMUM 5 YEARS MANAGEMENT / SUPERVISORY QA/0C EXPERIENCE
- CONDUCTED A DETAILED REVIEW 0F EACH FILE
-SET REVIEW TO DETERMINE
- EXPERIENCE
- EDUCATION
- FORMAL TRAINING AT CPSES
- 0JT
- RESULTS OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS
- 0 tiler VALID CERTIFICATIONS IN RELATED AREAS
~
- CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RELATED EXPERIENCE
- RESULTS DOCUMENTED FOR EACil INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION, FILES UPDATED
ACT10ll PLAll - PilASE 11 REQUIRE FURTilER RECORDS EVALUATION QUEST 10llABLE CATEGORY UPDATE REQUIRED QUALIFICATI0lls 10lAL CURRENT ELECTRICAL 25 3
28 CURRENT OIllER DISCIPLINES 38 38 CURRENT LEVEL III 15 1
1 17 HISTORICAL ELECTRICAL 36 1
13 50 TOTAL
, Illi 5
1 11 133
ACTION PLAN - PHASE Ill DETAILED EVALUATION OF QUESTIONABLE QUALIFICATIONS
- DETERMINE SAFETY RELATED WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY EACH INSPECTOR IN CilRON0 LOGICAL ORDER.
- IS IT STILL ACCESSIBLE, UNDISTURBED AND RECREATABLE?
t' 's '
- DEFINE WORK. ACCOMPLISHED I.1 F1RST 90 DAYS..
Qs;;-5c.g ~,<; 7-...w.
j
- REINSPECT WORK l' ' ' "
' '['
g.;_
- USE TillRD PARTY INSPECTORS (ERC)
- INSPECT USING ORIGINAL CRITERIA
- EVALUATE RESULTS
- OBJECTIVE - 95% AGREEMENT T
- SUBJECTIVE - 90% AGREEMENT [
IF INSPECTOR. FAILS CRITERIA - INPUT NEXT 90 DAYS EFFORT
- EVALUATE TO SAME CRITERIA o e j
- IF INSPECTOR FAILS - REINSPECT ALL REMAINING WORK
~
~
jj
- INSPECTORS WHO DO NOT HAV$ A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS b],g#
- EVALUATE WORK FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE.
j,,,,
m%
g p c,,, /f /
- IDENTIFY SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS TilAT CAN VALIDATE RESULTS 4
I
- PERFORM OTHER TESTS OR INSPECTIONS
- DOCUMENT HOW EACH CASE IS DISPOSITIONED 1
RELATED ACTIONS
- RTL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT PROCEDURES
- CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES
- CERTIFICATE FILES
- TESTING PROCEDURES 8 CONTROLS
- COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM FOR TRACKING ALL CERTIFICATION /RECERTIFICATION ACTIONS
{
NEW APPROACH TO INSPECTOR-TESTING r
'c I'
- 1. '
s.,' I t
/'#..
, e, l '
f
- BANKS OF Q' ESTIONS BEING DEVELOPED BY DISCIPLINE l
J
^".'f-i'd[
- SYSTEM OPERATIONAL BY MID APRIL i
i
- QUESTIONS CAN BE SCRAMBLED pi
- TRAIN TUGC0 QE'S ON HOW TO TRAIN INSPECTORS MORE EFFECTIVELY e
f c;. ' ( -
-INSPECTION PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM
(
y' o
L
l ' .
- EVALUATE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES, STUDY RESULTS, RECOMMEND c
IMPROVEMENTS r
- INSPECTION RESULTS TRENDED T0 IDENTIFY WEAKNESSES
- RESULTS TRENDED TO IDENTIFY CAUSE OF DISCREPANCY.- IDENTIFY PREVENTIVE ACTIONS f,.
( /,'-
. /. ;.'.._
I
?.'
. <O '
i.* c
.,,,, c t, j
e r i a-(
.,.1-zv<c
./.
a c,,~
&< n
.. J.-cr s o
F' 6
SUMMARY
APPROACll WILL
- ENABLE SRT/TUGC0 T0 IDENTIFY WEAKNESSES IN CERTIFICATION PROCESS
- IDENTIFY. INSPECTORS WITH QUESTIONABLE CERTIFICATIONS
- EVALUATE WORK PERFORMED BY THESE INSPECTORS T0. ASSESS FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE
- RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM e
9
KEY 00ESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS QA/QC PROGRAM 1.
WAS THE QA/QC PROGRAM, AS IMPLEMENTED, ADEQUATE TO ASSURE THAT THE INSTALLED flARDWARE WILL PERFORM ITS DESIGNATED FUNCTIONS WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF Tile PLANT?
2.
ISTilECURRENTQA/0CPR05RAMSUCCESSFULINIDENTIFYING QUALITY PROBLEMS AND ACHIEVING Tile IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE AND PRESENTIVE MEASURES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
y M
6 e
FINAL OVERALL EVALUATION OF QA /QC PROGRAM M $utTS OF IN0fveDuAL INoevsDUAL C Af 0C RE SutT S INOM Of HE R QA 8 OC Pfe0GRAas esANowANE tvaluAt aON REVIEW TE AM EWLuAlIONS EwALuATION RESULTS
- O C teeSPECTsow
- FAB SHOP
- Civel / MECHANICAL
- Aupli PROGRAM
- VALVE DeSASSEM8LY
- DESIGN ADE QU AC Y
- DEFICeEleCY IEErostTastG
- PIPE SUPPORTS
- TESilNG PROGR AMS
- teLT5 SOLT DeSIL*M
- S0.SSe REPosellesG
- E LECT / lNSTRUMENTAT40N
- ELECTR4 CAL SUPPORTS
- PROTECTIVE COATINGS
- MAseAGEMENT
- FUEL POOL LINER ASSE S$aeE NT
- MATERsAL TRACE Aea.1TV AseO CONTROL
- DOCtssENT CoseTROL
- CORRECTIVE ACTION
- NOUSE It E E P ese6 e EaIT eseTERVIEWS
- TR AsesseeG CERisFeCATION of teeSPECIDftS e.
1P EwAtuATeced Of ALL REveEW TEAtt REStLTS AS RELATED TO Ovtftatt AOE0uaCY OF GA #0C Pft04ftAlf COLLECT
~
- e. = Y.e
- =
=
~~
IDECOMMEDID UPGftADES#
Cumatest A00eiloseAL HePftovtMENTS m
NO Ga#0C NAAOWARE#
CONOUCT ADDITIONAL ygg g Peo6aAM Gintag essut E VA L U A T IO NS ust eTS Im2 A nt Ouan t t vatuAv eon maemnto UN IT S 182 VES PREPA8tf Actions PLAss RESULTS REPORT peo ON OvERALL OAs0C PROGRAM e
ee.e se, esos essee See,oetese esposeeeeems os dessessessee, empees es see beehee med 1
seeesy es tegeo e see e, m
o fetteeegos om s tas eegeeeed see cedeng -
^ some se e
foss eede esoceeg eveeseeagee se ete essaso.
bessessmen see ese eseeemesese.
4 1
i
j =i
- z
5
- Es
- t i.
s:.
.g r.in C;
a Is
- .I I
- =
- 1."
g.,
- ve
- s:
- 1 g5a
.s
- 'v se a
.s, a
E
! ~- 2 1-a 29 u
i t j
O
- f Li r
f i
w S
si.
i I
,2..Il-i II11 s:=
es
.s
=
a i.
g:t i
a 3 i
- ! jI 0 -
3-
- l i 11 fi 5
- ls r
- ln! ;I,!!
i l
as 5
rlI1=
z i
o s
1 1231n1 1
u
- m r!!
i z
t:
I a
i D
't o
31 3 *,
3; 393'
--l
_ gg
- ffl.
s li,v 1
s.
rssa e
.-my 583 I
I EI 1:-:
z.
!=g i
3 3:
I
- 8 sif l I31 g*i
! !i:
i5
!il !!!]i!!! r-------,lii g
cs=
e 9
F
=..
2 KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS MATERIAL TRACEABILITY AND CONTROL G
1.
WERE ADEQUATE CONTROLS IN PLACE TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTROL 0F MATERIALS?
~
2.
DOES ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION EXIST TO PROVIDE MATERIAL TRACEABILITY WilERE REQUIRED?
t 0
9
-A
~
e t
MATERIAL TRACEABILTY SeEveEw SACmGNOuMO Data NRC NISPE C$ tost NPORTS
. A$ast SunwtTS,
.TuGCot eam Aupei.
5JflVEILL ANCE & tsISPECia0ed M COAOS s NCR'$. CAR'S PROCEOumAL C0stiNOL$
,r ANattlE DATA F0n asalEINAL TRACE 4teLITY PN0eLEleS; RE vee W IuGCO#SSR VEN004 CONileOL OF MwSW tseith44L TRACE AGILif f P900LEMS
(
ser$t ANDIIT GneseMLL f ot AS$uMANCE OF m
40EssitFIED ST OlesER ACisces ITEas AESutTS
.mENierscalloss
'I" I
'II" "
I COMMCT4WE ACTI0f8 ON3stE FAenICAT9088 ACE 0uaCY OF CLOSEcesi PIPE SUPPORTS CatLE feat teAsesERS taLvt DeSASStaseLT FutL POOL Lies ( A watto as0 m
F0ft COleCLUSeDes DETAIL JusilFICAtl0N Port womP MS T AAaseT ROSLg OlesER ACis0stlTEasS y
nS I
l
+
8 DETEntsunt CAUSE OF PA00LKu l
I A8E8 MNEntC InsPLICATI0leS pean 0mastE MS l'
P.OviOEE0n-AT.O.
[
E j
TO APPLaCacLE ATL/C i,
eso NOTIFT APPLICABLE RTL/tc Fon Mvitw/ACisOes FOR Mwitw/Aciloss as0 f Pficettes 8,4 AIL /ICI M Sotvte Y
l AssALTZE lNSPECil0N ANO L
TE S isLtCEAestsif OATA F0n SPECIFC AseO GENEptC #sPtBCATIONS 1r im MPonT Oss CAuSE IttPostT ces Asso at$0Lufi0s Nantoaat 4
0F PaceLEns ACEOuaCT m,.=.Ci n = S=ls.=Pe=
O.":.":'.:':::...*.:='"
9; ;;:::.:".T.".
4 a
.a
~
- "". ". :"." e"-
e KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS DEFICIENCY REPORTING SYSTEM:
1.
WERE Tile PROCEDURES, AS IMPLEMENTED, ADEQUATE.T0 IDENTIFY, DOCUMENT AND DISPOSTION llARDWARE-DEFICIENCIES?
2.
WERE DEFICIENCIES PROPERLY TRENDED, ANALYZED FOR DETERMINATION OF CORRECTIVE OR PREVENTIVE ACTION AND ANALYZED FOR REPORTABILITY?
\\
c-
-=.
=
- J 6
DEFICIENCY REPORTING N4NIFT ALL PHOCEDURES,0NSTRUCleDNS.
AND OTHER WE ANS USED FOR REPORTING OEf EIENCES 1'
REvtE W OEFKENCY PROGRAW FOR ADEOUACY REPopisNG ALL OEFICIENT CON 0 lit 0NS
+ 0lSPOSie0NING ANO REINSPECT 40N
- ANALYSIS FOR PR06ftAMMATSC EFFECTS DEcuATE /
UPDATE
- NE veEW FOR REPORIABIUIT p
= ANALYSIS FOR IRENOS ANO CORRECifvt ACTION 4
1r REVIEW offlCIENCV PROGRane FOR leePLEMENTAT600s
. PROPER OISPOS4140NsN4 AND REaseSPECTIOet lesPLEMENTATION No REvitW FOR REPORiateLITY ADEcuATE
- AseALYS41 FOR TRENOS AND CORRECilvE ACTIOed TES 4
1r l OUTPui 10 CORRECisvE ACisces ACis0N PL AN y COescuCT ANALYSat OF RESutiS PR0vt0E REvits FleeplNGS OF CPRT $NSPECT80NS asePUT TO SPECFIC ACT1001 PLANS 10ENIFY SENERIC CONCERNS I
Quirui 10 80CFR SO SS(El REPORiaestlii
- CORRECTfvt ACTION PLAN CONOUCT A00lilONAL INSPECT 40ed/
EVALUATION AS REcueRED ACia086 PLAN
+10CFR SO SSIEl.
l I
i e
e F
PMt PamE aC I mes Pt an PE Suk T 5 Itt Possi O$, UEeY.E
.. Os.e e
Os.
9 eS M e e.O se taste. tee. esotee.ege48e4 ees eeg een
- eene gesetwee eteetes eneogeon.se.
e T.O.":0 m..e
c e-'
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS CORRECTIVE ACTION 1.
HAS Tile. CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS BROUGHT SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS TO THE ATTENTION OF APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT?
2.
HAVE EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BEEN IMPLEM NIED?
,t
~
e
,t ig,\\
l
.i l
E R
.' J j An f'
0
(
R s
A S H 'L v
'r C R T
EPy Sr t v e e lEe S
RN T
R r
O g
OP NE ER PT S I
c S
s 0 Y N
re CL
) A C
e E L S
E GA
(
P (P
S i
s uN S
o TA s
S. N
'T ~
T 00 L
i I
C
$l C
R E
RC R
H S P E
I S
F A ES T 'R N e
C RN S8 0
EE WA4 Y
A L
D C TE TS RN A T E A
AO NAL T T HC DRI UR I
I B
PO RES ONS T P UE OEO OR C. GP E
S R
'R A
A W
CsO uR FOcA e H R
E 4 O LvN r
PeE A l
i 0
tAM L v
STA 10 N
4 SUE R S I
i T N l
n O
s Di o
CnEM r
I S
T S
E EC r
C N N LvOT a
T A
E0RC hs E
w SCPA t
A Mt Ll n
P E
a e0S e
S
- 7. :".3 ~/..
v E
h CE E
E t
RS st V
0 GR uU aE ss l
C R
a s O vu
".:.g~.
L i
iE C
N RC w0 P
E a tO T E e
S u 2;.
a sR mC s
K E
O a
rip E
T " *. ~ -.
R tm O R E
C IA D iP L
h a
~g o
R MrA S N o
tE N
R O
Y P
s A
e C
p C
N L E
P n
E P
I 0 C0 I 0 F1 E T D C A
S e
8 to s E
e V
np rT R T O U P Ps E eI R a'
DS ET S E cn wT Mt e uA n
c u t
E 0 v
v CE c
O 0 CR R A E P P
Re e s
S Ev
=
r
~ *
- KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS REPORTABILITY 1.
WERE THE PROCEDURES, AS IMPLEMENTED, ADEQUATE TO ENSURE THAT DEFICIENCIES HAVING A POTENTIAL FOR REPORTABILITY WERE PROPERLY ANALYZED?
2.
WERE DEFICIENCIES CLASSIFIED AS NOT REPORTABLE, ANALYZED AND APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES TAKEN?
o
e
_REPORTAD.iLjTY (IOCFRSO SSIEl)
IDENTIFY AND REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ADEQUACY
- REVIEW OF DEFICENCIES
- REPOHilt4G OF DEFICENCl[3 i
ii
%f VERIFY PROPER IMPLEMENTATKwt :
,REVEW PREVIOUSLY EWLUATED IDENTIFY AREAS NOT
'l DEFICIENCICS ' AGAINST SU8 JECT TO Review,
/ \\
g>
IOCFP50 55(EE CRITERIA la0T PROPERLY (J O
- ADEQUAT 6 VERIFY CORRECTIVE ~ ACTION-EWLUATED. OR NOT IMPLEMENTED FOR DEFICIEt4CIES CORRECTED NOT REPOHIED r
- IhPLEMENTATION -
~ DEOUATE*-
YES DEFeCatt CY C ICr4 PL AN
. - - > EWLUATE tsCR/ CAR /
T81EIJD REPORTS TO DETERMINE EXiEf4T 4
OF REVIEW ACTUAL.LY C
CTNE
--> COtaOUCTED
= - _ _ _
ACT1011 Pt AN 3
Parrear actem eiam atsmis naros(
- ~.:r.. :.:.=-
l:".*. "*.";.*"".".'.,
m-
.a
0 t
e 4
N G
I SE D
T SE T
A L
D E
E S
H S
T E
S R
N T
D A
E D
L E
A P
M S
N d
N O
R O
I A
T W
I T
C D
S A
R E
A U
N H
Q I
D Y
E E
L K
L A
?
T S
S T
N N
I EM E
E H
R L
T I
O U
R S
Q T
E E
N O
R O
D C
TN E
1 M
U CO D
e
"E Es
.g.
g!-
in 51f il
!!I Sgl se 55
<, = 1;:f S:
!!=
1 1.:
Ein 18 sg!
- te 0I
.5-
- gj sgi
~ ~];
I.
Et
- .g
)I "g
I
.i :-
iP e
E
[
- !e 1"grg
_aa no C:
a *I E
131:
l
,j o
ria:
c L
ljl I 1
ti.
g, '18i
=
h I
5 z
E hf I.
- 1 W
e s
gjevips r ijinn! 11 I n D
0 W}}3111 v"I r 1 v
- s t
a ;; 9 SI 5 EI Ig 15 I . i.i,i 3a:II i, !=!. n et 8 gI. 113 1 3* I W ggg 2 35 tre _ I !III;
- 4 v.
-s-Ij ll o e I of " .n O I 152 . g[- ti[ iBIb III O e s
f e o KEY OllESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS AUDIT PROGRAM O 1. IS THE CURRENT AUDIT PROGRAM ADEQUATE TO. IDENTIFY QUALITY PROGRAMS IN A TIMELY MANNER? E e
ACTION PLAN OUTLINE ADEQUACY OF THE QA AUDIT PROGRAM ISSUE: DURING THE PEAK SITE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD OF 1981-82, TUEC EMPLOYED ONLY FOUR AUDITORS, ALL OF WHOM HAD QUESTIONABLE QUALIFICATIONS IN TECHNICAL DISCIPLINES. ALTHOUGH CHARGED WITH OVERVIEW OF ALL SITE CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED VENDORS, THESE DALLAS BASED AUDITORS PROVIDED ONLY LIMITED QA SURVEILLANCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. INITIATIVES: ESTABLISH DATA ON THE OVERALL VERIFICATION PROGRAM, e.g., AUDIT, SURVEILLANCE, ETC., IN EFFECT DURING 1981 AND 1982. REVIEW THIS DATA FOR COMPLIANCE TO COMMITMENTS. ANALYZE IDENTIFIED DISCREPANCIES FOR SIGNIFICANCE, WITH CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER OVERVIEW PROGRAMS IN EFFECT. REVIEV CURRENT VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR COMPLIANCE TO COMMIT'ENTS AND FOR ADEQUACY. REVIEW SIMPLE OF QUALIFICATION RECORDS FOR CURRENT AUDIT STA'F. PROPOSE CC '.RECTIVE ACTION AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT PROGRAM. 1 b (
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS m-MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT t 1. ARE CURRENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS PROVIDING SENIOR MANAGEMENT WITH APPROPRIATE DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING 0F THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QA PROGRAM? 9 L
ACTION PLAN OUTLINE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF QA/QC PROGRAMS ISSUE: TUEC FAILED TO PERIODICALLY ASSESS THE OVERALL. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITE QA PROGRAM IN THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO REGULAR REVIEWS OF PROGRAM ADEQUACY BY SENIOR-MANAGEMENT. FURTHER, TUEC DID NOT ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS QC PROGRAM. INITIATIVES: DETERMINE THE ACCEPTED INDUSTRY PRACTICE FOR AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROGRAM. UTILIZING RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES SUCH AS INPO. REVIEW CURRENT TUGC0 PROGRAM AND PRACTICES CONCERNING MANAGEMENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS. PROPOSE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CURRENT PROGRAM. O q O
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS EXIT INTERVIEWS 1. IS THE SAFE TEAM PROGRAM DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING PROJECT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, AND ACHIEVE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WHERE NECESSARY? 9 l l
ACTION PLAN OUTLINE EXIT INTERVIEWS IS St'E : THE TUEC EXIT INTERVIEW SYSTD1 FOR DEPARTING DIPLOYEES APPEARED TO BE INEFFECTIVE. INITIATIVES: 1. REVIEW THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES OF THE CPSES SP' OMBUDSMAN. s 2. REVIEW THE POLICIES AND PROCEDCP.!:S Cl*PP.E:il' ' DEVELOPMENT BY SAFE TEAM. 3. DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ABOVE PROCEDURES TO: (a) DOCUMENT DIPLOYEE STATEMENTS ON PROJECT FTRENGTHS AND WEALNESSES. (b) RESOLVE IDENTIFIED EMPLOYEE CONCERNS WIT!! TUCCO MANAGEMENT AND INTERVIEWEE. (c) ALERT TUCCO MANAGEMENT TO POSSIBLE ROOT CAUSES AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF IDDITIFIED CONCERNS. (d) PRC 7CT THE ANONYMITY OF THE INTERVIEWEES. 4.' FOLLOW UP WITHIN TUGC0 ON ACTIONS TAKEN TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE OF A SAMPLE OF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY OMBUDSMAN AND SAFE TEAM. 4 5. EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IF APPLICABLE.
- e 4,
e d q -pi-w-
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN ACTION PLANS HOUSEKEEPING i 1. ARE Tile CURRENT HOUSEKEEPING. AND SYSTEM CLEANLINESS PRACTICES. ADEQUATE? 9 9 9 v m
l 2 .y .g; w
== 2gg-
- )
i: .f 51., s *:
- =
- s. :
5::: -l; -a s Cas g8 s s: =t .its I i IP v = -!W; b m i .E2' 3 8 u 2 3. t I i r I
- ji11 1::J! I 1
I s 14 !!~11i: 2 i I r w 1 3.1 I 5 ~ ~g 1 t ij!I'!Ill gg i = =Ej d 5 1 ( l 3 nt!r1,5
- J!
e E i
==b;3Jiij z !3 w a
- 5.5 li lg 3:.
Y -5_ - - - -.J 3 : M N "fa w gg.
- =:
3*
- g I
S I; 3W W a s.-r 6 g sa y zu8 EI yI II
- I
- {
= a
- I:
d 8 O .I O., 29 e O zg! 3:=
- 35 h5,g--* !=!
~ i;I ~ r i..
- e.. -
o 6g 883 f I I I I I I 1 ]: 3 El
- )
e I E. Iog _:s ti .a= -2
- ~
!.i ~ -J ~ m. mir IMI I'J s t.8 e o 9 5 4 9 4
e.. ACTION PLAN ITEM IDEHinFY MATERI AL STOR AGE. FADRICATION $110s rAnacar:ON a eNsnCtaoM PROCEcuRES IN EFF ECT PflELIMINARY - FEB. 27,1985 e ASME lesoN A$r4:5.e.asi REVIEW PEASONNEL et sm e TR AINING RECOROS l NO 8EV'E W SURVET* Kat PROCEDURES SUR WEILL ANCE. tAuosTRECOROS ,e, l 80ENTIFY Pfl0 CESS,fAERICATION. PROGRAMMATIC ROOT CAUSE f aeNSPECTsota MCORDS USED a HAR0 WARE eMPACT ses ses 6 f SELECT SAMPLk FAaneCATED PIECES. REVtEW FAMRICAT80N 1A at P A M ATIC 'pa ak k500 SPECIFIC REvstw II E 88 88 ASME l4e0N-ASMEtSofetyl l t f I INPUT TO MATERIAL TRACEAttuTV / \\ VES CPSEf NCR RtviEw ITEM u l PROLflAut4ATIC IS$ut SPECif 4C DISCREPANCIES h N / PROCESS 2 su s e a. I SAFE N0 I l CLOSED l SIGNeflCANT s 1 e i vES I I I t ROOT CAUSE __y O AN ALY Sl$ det g k. GE NE RIC IMPLIC ATlON S i
- , e DEVELOP PROGRAM TO CORRECT l
PROGR AMM ATIC S H ARDWARE 6 DE f lC6E NCIE S t
ACT1071 PLArd ITEM 7 Es Aeose attentmCE VALVE DISAS SUf 8f Y-FLOW CilAftT r Aur inte AiAtisis . Ent out s vionAste e EqFent FAmt !
- DEttputtet u0ot s e
sassiv vALvts PftELibit1ARY FEB. 2 6,1985 e esaireCA=Ce TAf No.40Cet esfe's. W ITPt. $EIE.hAINIG. ,, g, g g, I Coot CLASS 8 'I
- SuffALLAT1081 MISTD47 1844 F R AIsE 3 e PpOCEDuet III FORCC eastesamt 90n EACn Paneoe g{,,,
. urss onAsines v., atvite CnAFT a es P40CEDunts VERef f OC DOCUMENTariCse .mC Tr$ Otqu/ Aft "' A m t ~ 0 l SttsCT $ MALL SAesPLC SELECT SauPLE #04 ptiestPECTeGet u st PAR Af f POPULafices FOR R ACM gg ' WALVC T V PC uf G A.CL A S9, t TC. ger f* PilASE I =. = = = = = = = = = = - = = = * = = = = = = = * = = = = = = - =^ = * ~ ' - - L PilASE E (9tsPILE ALL isf 84'S OAIA PACEAtt$ 2 Ah8 8NST'N REC 0408 FOA SAtsPLES gencertsc PatPAnt TAAvttta poe v4Lvt 8,s Asst Tse / ese Asse y nee e. \\ me sesasstuota v&Lwt g i s s.,,. f ,gg ,gq, g ,g ANALT313 VtBIFT eselfANALS Vf BAF T 903T # 80NNtf MATCM Courteva A T80M int instan ALs\\ ygg PROPER I#IC'I'C I 'I " I "'# et Asstuett Ano CLost gu rteCall0N S aturst A / a ns 81 0 (IP AND S AasPLC ,","(g
- As C0A AECT Pm%e AWu Afg Ape #0m NAapeant Of 7ICif NCit 3 deC#FFf($
e-OsTAve mSPECTION OaTAIN SPEC'S REVIEW SPEC *S. AC TIO N P l_ A N ITEM 4. A CNtCIILISTS AND OWG'SSPROCEDURES OR AWINGS & USTRuCTeoNS uSED FOR IDENTIFIE D PROCEDURES PIPE SUPPORT IN3FECT10NS LY T AT. PIPE SUPPORTS satt twee asc/ruece 1 PRELIMIN ARY - F E B. 26,1985 IS e, TRT ARE i ACCEPilREJ. TAT IDENTIFY PIPE SUPPORTS IDENTIFY TRT IDENilFY TRT ACCEPT # REJECT C RITE RIA ATTRieuTES INSPECTED SY T RT INSPECTION VAL 10 VALIO ATT RISUTES CRITERIA ser see ass ras e PREPARE CHECitLIST RENSPECT COsealeE BNSPECDON
- 4 S BNSTRUCTIONS T RT RESULTS S IDENTIFY EVALUATE WN E THER IOR REINSfTCTION SAMRE VALIO TRT SAMPLE COWERS g ag--
set DE FICIE NCIE S MULTIPLE POPUL ATIONS REVISE ATTRetu!E ser (ilGID, NON-ALGID.L ARGE LIST AN0/OR DORE, SM ALL SORE ACCEPT # R EJ ECT CRIT ERIA sac PREPARE REINSPECT R EVIE W lNSPE.CTION l' AOptisONAL RESULTS AND REINSPECTION 80ENTIFY NUMBER DETERMSNE f*Cp Agh RANDOM IDENilFY WALID t sac skMPLES CEFIClENCIES OF ITEMS IN EACH L RAN00M SAMPLE POPULATION S12E REQUIRED e sat gag saco rarece one 1' OsTAIN LIST OF SELECT ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN E ACH b RANDOM SAMPLES POPULATION sac / ruece I VALID DE F8CIE NCIES 't .I \\1 EXPAND SAacLE AS EVALU ATE RESULTS OF EXPANDED SAMPLE ISSUE N CR o EVALUATE SAFET REQUIRE 0 FOR THE M AT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL OR 100 % 0 BC EN ES AF Y 15 X SIGNIF SC AN C E SIZE BASE ON NO. 0F set RTL*,jtec FINDIN G S) ~ sac ACCEPT POPULATIONS WITNb* SAFETY DEVELOP REMEDI AL ACTION SIGNIf! CANT DEFICIENCICS PROGR AW PCh81 AFFECTED ses N ARDWARE AND #CR 80ENTIFIEfe PROGRAMS.Af fC 04 GENERIC EVALUATE ROOT CAUSES EXPAND SAMPLE AS REQUlRED EVALUATE RESULTS CONCERNS OF ALL DEFICIENCIES FUI TUEVALUATE POTENTIAL OF EXPANDE0 SAMPLi ssa GENERIC OR PROGRAMMATIC CENERIC OR PROGRAMMATIC (M AY REOulRE g DE FICIEN CIES IMPLICATIONS ADDITIONAL SAMetES) ses sm8 ses
c e. ACTION PLAN ITEM HILTI BOLT INSTALL.ATION PRELIMINARY FEB 26.1985 REVIEW SPECIFICATIONS S PROCEDURES FOR INSTL'N. AND WSPECTION CRITERIA FOR HILTI BOLTS 1P DEFINE CRITICAL ATTRIBUTES ADD REQUIRED REVIEW OTHER ISSUE NO ATTRIBUTES PLANS INVOLVING HILTI BOLTS TO ASSURE THEY INCLUDE REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES YES e ~ WAS SAMPLE SIZE NO INCREASE SAMPLE A DEQU ATE SIZE FOR HILTI 8OLTS ONLY YES 3p EVALUATE DATA Fit 0M E ACH ISSUE - SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION PLAN REsutTS REPORT s
- s-me-,
ACTION PLAN ITEM
- 2. A FUEL POOL LINER PRELIMlHARY - F ED. 2G,l985 OSTAIN & REVIEW IDENTIFY REOUIREMENTS IEENTIF Y S AF E1 T 10ENTIFV ACCEPTAtiCE LedER SPECIFICATION O FOR ERECTION. INSPECTION.
O SIGNIFICAN T 0 CRITERI A AND DRAWINGS TESTING S 00CUMENTATION AT TR19U TES see e ISSUE NCR's REINSPECT SELECT S A MPLE DEVELOP CHECEllSTS S FOR VALIO OF LifeER FOR INSTRUCTIONS FOR REINSPECTION RE4NSPECTIONS DErlCIENCIES 1P e 1f EVALUATE ROOT CAUSES OF ARE ALL VallD DEFICIENCIES FOR DEFICIENCIES NO CLOSE/ GENERIC OR PROGRAMMATIC SAF ETV REPORT BM PLIC ATION S. SIGNIFICANT 4b VES 1r EVALUATE ROOT CAUSES OF SAFETV SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES I 1P DEVELOP REME0lAL ACTION PROGRAW FOR AFFECTED = NARDWARE AND # 04 IOEMilFIED PROGR AMM AY1C OR GENERIC CONCERNS I t
ee
- a-ACTION PLAll ITEM ELECTRICAL HACEWAY SUPPORT INS PECT10 tis PRELIMINARY -- F E D. 25, !9 05
1 r- - - - - - - - i r
i r-- - - - - i r--- 7 ExPANO sauPLtl PacPant wtLo I l~ _ dlNsreci e vrairvjgi PatPanc e l, otrsac e f _, sir acouinto Maps {assuitts ' - - r.,3 l ' --,-d j As suiLTs l l PoPutariou e '--,-.d i , w.J l l l 8 I I e g i g It - - -, 1 --t.-, r----
s t- - -
---t 4 l j otrust e stLtcT '-- -_) cNtcu cates L I sitsolvt cirrenaNcc Ih~3 I vanir y weLo 8 I I s A MPLE 0 g I stTwstN as sulLis 8 map g uPDaiE L ' - -,- J e *- - - 4,a La ** oc$'aata,,,J '- -- T - ;,_,j 4 " ^ " ' " ' ' i examine noof caust g ron GENenIC iMPLICait0Ns u g b -"TP TO ntCOMMENO ADOiTIONAL 3 l acTav Tits ir nroutato g ',g, l vts l l o l cvaLuart TNano ranTv saMPuMG PLAN notouais evenview ces otouais I ron acc0UaCY A SAMPLING g l easis g p__k___ I 80 0 -.- e tvatunit weLo Mars ---- ; eso I s Ncn e ron s.a 8 L. _.. _._.J tsAsce 4ts ir atCOMuneareON rOn PnOGnaM M00iriC ATIONs Ths't0 PanTV OvtavCif aDtouait ON A SAMPLE sasts a00 SAMPLE est gn. 94 0 l <r MCOMMEND RESOLUTION s., 'I at MaY Mto samples rOn CATEGOnVI CCMamT suPPOnis, i --.oN coiNo caste naceway surront PaoGnau.
r. Y 822a e 5" e = = zS o
- s-v5 C'$
- 10 55
=
3
- s aw=
$$=f5 3 GEgE;s08=r w o =s '5 y' y? -ry:u ee-u-wg.52 2"" WI 'E Eir aw3 W "j8 B 1 W3j!* ii-!l 3 o!.. 2 l33= zO eOOx A_ u o (d E j c 3: Es s =55 I
- ! I'igl.t ~ :
J L- ~ o w2 .#8 3 '-:1.g y i o ag f !3j1lj!= I ".L w,
- t..o '
r 2 u: J !." ? f 'I I8 o 23,
- !I!iisliti,
- jf as:
332
- d5
!i ti 51 L : H 0 .j '* # 8"a 5 5
- '- 35A!!a!"
ins, s: y ;" g:g !);i 9~ !gs E. n 1 131uj ~" aiS=s5W gg .=~ - .t n,-
s"
- > =. s w. trl {g t. =- w I j a =u>o 5:8 !. 2 C 85t. -.r t y i f E = _ g 8: =0 Ea 3 E. 0 I g gg e r O f !,* r 8 -.* E s ~ % I E 3"5 ea-e* .5 8 = a= = W -.ISE's w go u o w =g f o uww 3.o, = aw w = y a g, ig = c = i1: ra I A'r:l<Sw "j ERI !!lt a if =u I we - .!!5!g g*3 o.; rs! U t e
i. Attachment A RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRT REORGANIZATION Our recommendations incorporate the best of the various Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Government Accountability Projectinspection and review programs which the 0 GAP) has worked with since 1980. We believe that with successful Laplementation of the current Techni-cal Review Team (TRT) plans along with the modifications described below,the NRC should be able to ascertain the actual condition of Comanche Peak, resolve all pending allegations require the appro-priate utility review or reinspection program,,and provide assurance that all concerns of the workforce have been fo ;id by the NRC now instead of-on the eve of licensing.1/ 1. Expanded Field Inspection Effort We have previously explained this item in our September l 26 letter to Darrell Eisenhut regarding the inadequacies of the TRT effort to date. In short, only pursue allegations. our concern is that the TRT effort will We know that the NRC's concept for these special inspection efforts is to follow an allegation until it is confirmid or substantiated and then turn it over to the utility for such things as " root cause evaluation," etc. Such an effort is incomplete when the objective of the special inspection effort is to determine" root cause." Admittedly there is a large number of allegations and allegers at Comanche Peak. t However, it is not acceptable for the agency to depend upon the willingness of plant workers to indepen-dently report all significant violations. dangerously optimistic. Such an attitude would be We also recognize that the NRC does not have unlimited resources. Therefore we suggest that the agency conduct either a "whole building" or " vertical slice" inspection as a means of deter-mining the validity of the projects design and construction status. We suggest that such an inspe= tion be conducted of an l area or system that is completed. This will enable the NRC to check the accuracy of the final design documents. Such an inspection must, of course, be unannounced if it is going to have any legitimacy. l 1 As the NRC well knows it is an unfortunate, but predictable phenomena that members of a nuclear plant workforce wait until the last possible minute before making their concerns about plant safety known. This is a result of a combination of factors-including the belief that the probles will be resolved before start sp and fear of losing their job. m s ,,1 \\ } 2W 6 r-
Further we propose that the QA TRT personnel conduct a documentation audit of a sample of construction work in progress. To assess the extent that documentation problems invalidate ongoing con-struction and inspection work. ~ 2. Incorporation of Source Review our recommendations in this area stens.from our die appointment about how the TRT effort has failed to utilize the know-ledgeable members of the workforce who brought the problems to the a*.tention of the NRC. (See also September 26, 1984 letter to Darrell Eisenhut from Billie Garde). We suggest that the TRT appoint a coordinator to deal specifically with the allegers in order to both utilize their ex-perience and expertise to the fullest extent. Further, the coor-dinator would insure that the NRC inspection is of the same defi-ciencies the alleger identified. We have found in the past that taking the allegers on the site one of the best ways to take advantage of the level of detail and assistance which they can provide. That approach would be parti-cularly helpful at Comanche Peak, especially among those personnel with experience ~in documentation. Finally, we propose that the NRC establish a methodology which provides equal time (including preparation time) to the allegers to review the responses proposed by TUGCQ to the TRT findings. This could best be accomplished through the establish- ~ ment of a review panel composed of members of the public, former CPSES employees, intervenors and any experts which were retained by the intervenors to review the adequacy of the resolutions proposed by TUGCO. This process would institutionalize much of the time consuming effort of.recentacting the various members of the public or allegers for their comments on a particular response. Further, it would provide a process in which the NRC staff - rather than a single representative - could direct questions at the intervenors or allegers who raised the concerns. These types of meetings have been going on informally at plants where there are allegations and disputes over t resolutions, however these types of meetings have rarely been institu-tionalized. If such a procedure is considerad GAP will provide the mechanism for setting up the meetings, contacting the appropri-ate group of allegers, and insuring that the personnel have the ques-tions and materials necessary to adequately prepare for the meeting. p.,.
~3-Obviously such meetings would, by financial necessity, have to be held in Texas. would be broken down by eitherBy efficiency we expect that the meeting, (i.e. problems in start-up, documentation deficiencies) discipline or by particular system
- 3. iAllegation Recruitment Program GAP has been inundated with requests for help by alle-gers and intervenors at nuclear power plants accross the country.
The primary reason cited for contacting us for help in investigating prob-lems is a deep distrust in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We have determined that this distrust among intervenors stems from a history of broken promises by the agenc professional and often rude treatment by the agency.,y ' officials, un-
- lawyers, g
and blatant agency-industry ' hob-nobbing" on techni, cal issues and i legal arguments. on the side of the public.Intervenors soon learn'that the agen'cy is rarely Workers who contact us, however, usually have 'either' little or no prior experience with the NRC or have only ' heard" that the agency can not be trusted. determined attitude against the NRC.Most workers (except those in Region IV) have no pr They think that the agency wants to make sure a plant ir, safe and the rules are followed, they turn to GAP as a way to get their concerns to the agency. Our program for flushing out allegations has been tre-mondously successful at almost every plant. gram should be adopted by the agency as part ofWe believe a similar pro-at each plant to preclude last minute allegation crises. final agency re-view gest that Comanche Peak be the place to start. We sug-outlined below are the steps we think-should be taken at this time at Comanche Peak plant to preclude a deluge of allegations throughout the remainder of the plant construction. 1.- Establishment of an NRC " hotline" for Comanche Peak workers to report their concerns. An on-site NRC information program in which the TRT, 2. its purposes, and the conditions of confidentiality are explained 3. Publication and availability of the TRT's unanswered questions to those members of the workforce who can supply the answers. l i g. ...__..,.......,.,..g.,- . 7 _,,,, .-.-...--.~,..-..,n, ,,._m g, nn _,.y, e.
1 l 4. Establishment of a separate NRC exit interview and in-formation sheet for.all departing employees, explain-ing their Department of Labor rights and their rights -and obligations under - the law to report problems. (GAP will be glad to provide a copy of the form we use during our major investigations) 5. A structural " debriefing" program which is conducted by skilled interviewers as opposed to technical in-spectors. GAP representatives will be glad to meet with any or all members of the TRT to discuss in more detail any of our proposals des-cribed in this " attachment. \\ e S
GL. TRT ACTION ITEMS Areas: Civil / Electrical / Test Programs Allegations fcte: Issues in these areas provided to applicant 09/18/84 Lead Completion Item Responsible Date Civil Executive Summary for SSER Shao 10/19 (Electrical / Test Program summaries complete) Finalize 33 SSER sections Group Leaders 10/26 Alleger feedback contacts Tang /Wessman 10/26 (Arrange interviews) Evaluate need to retain witness "F" Noonan 11/02 as NRC consultant Comolete alleger feedback interviews Jeng/Calvo/Keimig 11/02- !ntagrate 33 SSER sections into SSER Tang /Vietti 11/09 Draft SSER to management Tang 11/09 Issue SSER (will not have con-LB#1 11/16 clusions or results of witness "F" allegations) Evaluate witness "F" allegations Calvo/Keimig/Jeng 12/07 and alleger feedback results Integrate results of witness "F" Tang 12/14 allegations and alleger feedback contacts into supplemental SSER Response to ASLB memo of 10/01/84 Keimig 11/30 on " Concerns on Startup QA" Area: Coatings Allegations Identify applicant actions Matthews 10/19 Draft 7 SSER Sections Matthews 10/26 Alleger Feedback Contacts Tang /Wessman 11/02 (Arrange interviews) Complete alleger feedback interviews Matthews 11/09 Integrate TRT Findings with results Matthews (CSB, RSB, 11/16 of NRR coatings safety analysis CPB to assist) Meet.with applicant Noonan 11/20 Evaluate results of alleger feedback Matthews 11/30 Finalize 7 SSER coatings sections Matthews 11/30 Coatings Executive Sumary. for SSER Matthews 11/30 Integrate coatings SSER sections Tang /Vietti 12/14 with Mechanical /QA/ Misc. ~ bl2%.
p . Lead Completion Item Responsible Date Area: Mechanical Allegations Identify applicant actions Shao/Hou 10/19 Draft 47 SSER sections Shao/Hou 10/31 Alleger feec.back contacts Tang /Wessman 11/02 (Arrange interviews) Complete alleger feedback interviews Shao/Hou 11/16 Meet with applicant Noonan 11/20 Evaluate results of alleger feedback Shao 11/30 Finalize 47 SSER mechanical sections Shao/Hou 12/07 Mechnical allegations executive Shao/Hou 12/07 summary for SSER Integrate Mechanical SSER section Tang /Vietti 12/14 with Coatings /QA/ Misc. Area: Miscellaneous Allegations Identify ap311 cant actions Bangart Complete Draft 21 SSER sections Bangart Complete A11eger feedback contacts Tang /Wessman 11/02 (Arrange interviews) Complete alleger feedback interviews Bangart 11/16 Meet with applicant Noonan 11/20 Evaluate results of alleger feedback Bangart 11/30 Finalize 21 SSER Misc. sections Bangart 11/30 Miscellaneous allegations executive Bangart 11/30 summary for SSER Integrate Misc. section of SSER with Tang /Vietti 12/14 Coatings /QA/ Mechanical sections Area: 0A/QC Allegations Draft 69 SSER sections Livermore 10/26 Identify applicant actions Livermore 10/26 Alleger feedback contacts Tang /Wessman 11/02 (Arrange interviews) - Complete alleger feedback interviews Livermore 11/16 Meet with applicant Noonan. 11/20 Evaluate results of alleger feedback Livermore 12/07 Finalize 69 SSER sections Livermore 12/14 0A Allegation Executive Summary Livermore 12/la for SSER Integrate 0A section of SSER with Tang /Viett'i 12/14 Coatings / Mechanical / Misc. sections e q-
r . Lead Completion Item Responsible Date area: General TRT Items. Close site office Gagliardo 10/12 Feeting with app?.icant on Program Eisenhut/Noonan 10/19 Plan Responsa of 10/08/84 Establish alleger feedback procedure Tang /Shao 10/23 and tentative contacts schedule ?rovide TRT input to 50.57(c) Vietti 10/26 response Determine need to retain other Noonan 11/01 allegers as NRC consultants SSER Completion: Integrate-144 group inputs into Tang /Vietti 12/14 allegations SSER Management Review of SSER Noonan 12/21 Publish SSER LB#1 12/28 Cbtain rest of Atchison Gagliardo 10/26 Allegations (evaluation will be incorporated in Mechanical Grcup reviews) Complete Review of Several Vendor Allegations: Diesel Generators Bangart 11/09 (applicants vendor inspection program) Grinnell Pipe Hangers Shou 10/26 Include vendor reviews in Misc. Tang /Vietti 12/14 section of SSER Develop Program for Handling Vietti/Bangart 11/09 future allegations at CPSES Provide Potential Enforcement Gagliardo 12/28 Actions resulting.from TRT effort to Region IV for action Publish SSER addressing remaining 01/85 TRT issues and results of alleger feedback contacts Assess Applicant actions in response Group Leaders 02/85 to NRC " Requests for Information" resulting from.TRT effort. Prepare SSER e 8
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 October 26, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton l Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr.~Darrell Eisenhut Director I Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Nos. 50-445 and 50-446) Texas Utilities Generating Company Program Plan, October 8, 1984 l
Dear Mr. Denton and Mr. Eisenhut:
This letter serves as preliminary comments, analysis and recommen-dations of the Government Accountability. Project (GAP) and the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) regarding the adequacy of design, construction and operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) and the compliance of CPSES with federal regulations and industry standards. It is clear to us, and we believe should be to the NRC and the. public, that the Comanche Peak plant is the victim of a comprehen-sive quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) breakdown. Since the scope of the Technical Review Team (TRT) is limited, it is understandable why Texas Utilities Generating Company's (TUGCo) response is equally narrow. by both the agency and applicant,Such an approach is extremely imprudent at this juncture. Based on our review of the October 8, 1984, proposal by TUGCo or applicant, we make the following recommendations: 1. Reject the October 8, 1984, proposal (Revision O) as submitted. f 2. Require TUGCo to hire an independent contractor to 4 develop and implement any subsequently approved re-l inspection or corrective action proposal. s-
- NM -b i
K bl2%] 7l m _-, r ~' IH PP
Mr. Harold R. Danton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 2.6, 1984 Page Two 3. Require TUGCo's response to include a " vertical slice" 17 re-inspection program of at least three safety systems.- 4. Expan'd the NRC's TRT's efforts to include those expanded items in Section II of this letter, including a total in-spection and documentation review of either one major safety system or one separate area of the plant (similar to the major Diesel Generator Building inspection at the Midland nuclear power plant in October,1982). 5. Expand the official agency review of the adequacy of TUGCo's response effort to include a review by a panel i of former employees. At this time, we remain skeptical of the plan being provided by TUGCo to allay legitimate NRC and public concerns about the safety of the CPSES project. I. BACKGROUND Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station is a two-unit power reactor under construction near Glen Rose, Texas. It is owned by a consor- . tium of six utility companies. Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC), through its subsidiary TUGCo, retains responsibility for design, construction and operation. The plant has been plagued by a lengthy history of allegations of inadequate design, improper construction, and a flawed QC program. These allegations have come to the attention of the NRC primarily through the citizens intervenor organization, however, throughout the seven to eight years of construction, employees have independently contacted the NRC to report design and construction deficiencies. The project has undergone a number of special NRC inspection efforts, as well as the regulatory program. 4 The plant has not yet received an operating license. There are currently two ongoing licensing dockets, both, actively involved in hearings. In March, 1984, GAP announced an independent investigation of CPSES. GAP filed an emergency request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 requesting an immediate stop work order, an independent audit of the project, and a major investigation by the Office of Investigations (OI). .That request was subsequently granted in part and denied in part. 1[A similar request is pending in front of the Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) both in the technical contentions docket (Docket 1) and the harassment and intimidation docket (Docket 2). e (- m .,.,-...-,,-.,-..m. y
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell'Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Three on March 12, 1984, William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations (EDO) announced the reorganization of NRC resovrces for the Waterford III and CPSES projects. This reorganization was to c'oordinate all agency actions on these projects under one office-- the Office of the Director of the Division of Licensing. The stated i purpose of this unusual organization was to resolve the remaining issues before the staff could make the licensing decision. The initial focus of this coordinate'd " task-force" approach, i used previously at Diablo Canyon, was to " expeditiously" resolve all existing and new issues "so as not to delay the licensing decisions." (March 12, 1984,. Memorandum to John T. Collins, et al., from William J. Dircks, EDO, re: Completion of Outstanding Regulatory Actions on Cor.anche Peak and Waterford.) i In early April, a coordinated team of NRC management officials, inspectors and investigators arrived on the CPSES site to conduct a preliminary review of the adequacy of construction at the project. The report of this effort was issued July 13, 1984. On September 18, 1984, a second report was issued which high-lighted some of the issues which had been identified by the TRT in its inspection and review effort conducted during July and August, 1984. I On October 8, 1984, TUGCo responded to the findings of the TRT by announcing the establishment of a Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and a complimentary response effort to the NRC's findings. On October 19, 1984, a meeting was held in Bethesda to discuss the TUGCo response to the TRT findings. (That meeting was completed i at a second meeting on October 23.). Additionally, on October 19, 1984, the NRC staff submitted to the ASLB its projected schedule for completion of outstanding ASLB issues. Although the ASLB schedule outlines the schedule for the items necessary for resolution before the ASLB, it does not incor-porate all items requiring NRC review, inspection and resolution prior to licensing. (Those additional items, or a timetable for~ resolution, are not addressed in the staff submittal.) Following the release of the latest schedule, the original in-r structions from Mt. Dircks, EDO, to his staff, that is, the expedi-tious resolution of open issues to meet the utilities' timetable, 1 seems inappropriate. Outlined below are what GAP and intervenor CASE believe to be i a more prudent and regulatory-efficient approach. i I L -.n.- -. - -- r.,.~ r e-.. ...-,en-,e.- .,,g
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 16, 1984 Page Four II. PROPOSED NRC ACTIONS The following outline is submitted as a proposed modification to the ongoing TRT efforts: (see Attachment A) 1. Expanded field inspection effort "Whole system" or " vertical slice" approach; a. b. As-built inspection with final design paper; Audit of documentation to field to vault for c. in-process construction. 2.- Incorporation of source review Appointment of allegations source response a. coordinator; b. Field visits by allegation sources; Review panel for former employees. c. 3. Allegations recruiting program Establishment and promotion of information a. " hot line;" I b. Publication of a summary of unanswered questions to the workforce; Establishment of an NRC interview program; c. d. Structured " debriefing" program. III. MODIFICATION IN THE CPSES RESPONSE TO THE TRT The current proposed Revision O of the Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plan (" Program Plan") has several fundamental flaws in its structure, scope and methodology. Essentially, we believe that TUGCo needs to completely revamp the programmatic basis and philosophical approach upon which the Program Plan is based. These flaws are summarized below: No organization independence. I Inherent conflict of interest of personnel involved i in the Senior Review Team, review team members, issue leaders, etc. i I e ,r"" r .~. ~
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Five Fundamentally inadequate program objectives and principles. . Inadequate and unacceptable program processes and QA (methodology). Insufficient program record plans and tracking systems. Overly-narrow and restricted scope. Because of the overall inadequacy a'nd fundamental flaws of the TUGCo proposal, we do not think it is a prudent expansion of our efforts to provide a line-by-line analysis of this revision. We will, how-ever, delineate our principle objections and recommendations below. 4 'l. Any analysis or re-inspections which are responsive to the TRT's findings should be done by an independent contractor. This contractor should be chosen according to all of the criteria ~for independence. Those criteria are outlined in a February 1, 1982, letter from Chairman Palladino to Congressmen Dingell and Ottinger. The three elements necessary are: a. Competence: " Competence must be based on knowledge of and experience with the matters under review." b. Independence: " Independence means that the individ-uals or companies selected must be able to provide an objective, dispassionate technical judgment. pro-vided solely on the basis of technical merit. In-dependence also means that the design verification 1 program must be conducted by companies or individ-i uals not previously involved with the activities they will now be reviewing." c. Integrity: "Their integrity must be such that they i are regarded as respectable companies or individuals." We have reviewed the independence criteria as it has been Midland and Zimmer nuclear power. plants in preparation for this ponse. There is no question, given that criteria, that Ebasco, Inc.-- evidently selected by TUGCo to perform the independent review--does not qualify to perform an independent audit or analysis of Comanche Pe2k problems under any of the three criteria. First, we do not find that Ebasco is competent. We draw the attention of the NRC to its own recent findings about the significant
4 Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Six i QA breakdown at the Waterford nuclear power plant. In the Scptember, 1984, Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER No. 7), on page 15, the WRC made the following conclusion in the summary of a review of 350 allegations: 2. Quality Assurance activities during most of construction were principally' delegated to the major contractor, EBASCO, by the utility. The lack of a fully staffed and effective utility QA program, along with EBASCO's. failure to fully carry out the QA responsi-bilities delegated to them, led to quality . problems during construction. Documentation available to both GAP investigators and the NRC clearly indicates that Ebasco was willing--and in fact did--shortcut compliance of its work to federal regulations. We also understand that Ebasco is currently under investigation by OI for its activities at Waterford nuclear power plant. However, it is not necessary to leave Comanche Peak to make 2 general assessments about Ebasco's lack of competence. Both TUGCo and the NRC are well aware of the lengthy trail of misjudgments made by Ebasco's lead employee on the Comanche Peak site. Perhaps the most notable incident currently in front of all parties is the liner plate mishap. (This incident is described in detail in a CASE pleading, September 27, 1984, CASE's Evidence of a Quality Assurance Breakdown.) Mr. Thomas Brandt, senior Ebasco employee, has attempted since the issue came to the attention of the ASLB., to explain the basis for his personal conclusion that the stainless steel liner plates are installed in an indeterminate condition. This position by the senior Ebasco employee is evidence under both the integrity and competence section. It is indicative of the same type of sloppy attitude that has led the Waterford NRC teen to reach its conclusions about Ebasco. Second, Ebasco simply does not meet the independence standard. Ebasco personnel have been involved in every aspect of the construc-tion, inspection, litigation and re-evaluation of the Comanche Peak i project. Even if Ebasco brought in personnel who have had no previous involvement with the project, the company would not have any cor-porate independence. We hope that TUGCo has recognized that organizational inde-pendence is impossible for Ebasco to achieve. i F" i )
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 o Page Seven Finally, the history of Comanche Peak's Department of Labor record and its Waterford evaluation are full of Ebasco's demon-strated lack of integrity. We draw the attention of the NRC once again to the Secretary of Labor's finding that Thomas Brandt was not credible in his testimony about the termination of Charles Atchison. (See the Secretary of Labor's Decision, Atchison v. Brown & Root, June 10 1983, pg. .) We hope that TUGCo has the foresight to voluntarily withdraw Ebasco as its nominee and rg/ submit a set of three nominees to the agency for their selection.1 In choosing the companies to nominate for this independent re-view, we request that the utility be required to adhere to both the independence criteria (discussed above) and the following process recommendations: 1. Do not " hire" any contractor until the NRC has the opportunity to review the nomination for compe-tence, integrity and independence. 2. Arrange for the public (intervenors, former employees, lay persons) to comment on the selection prior to. entering into any contract. 3. Be prepared to have the contract for the indepen-dent contractor publicly available. Our specific recommendations regarding the contract of the independent auditor are noted below: 1. The independent contractor should be responsible directly to the NRC, submitting all interim and final product simultaneously with TUGCo and the NRC. 2. The independent contractor should do a histori-cal assessment of TUGCo's prior work. 3. The contract should ensure that, once hired, TUGCo cannot dismiss the independent contractor from the project without prior notice to the NRC 2/This process ~ of nomina i.on, selection and a public meeting on the selection was used at Midland, Zimmer, Diablo Canyon and LaSalle (partial-KVAC audit). e
1 Mr. Harold B. DEnton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26., 1984 Page Eight and an NRC-sponsored public meeting to jus-tify the decision. S' 4. The contract should require that each auditor subcontract any services for which its direct personnel are not qualified. 5. The contract should require that the proposed methodology be disclosed: specifically selec-tion criteria and size of the samples for. inspections and testing. 6. The contract should require the auditors 'to provide calculations demonstrating that it is 1 possible to adequately complete its work during the proposed timeframe. i 1 7. The contract should require' the auditor to i support its proposed methodology through references to established professional. codes (i.e., ASIM, ASME, ANSI, AWS, etc.). i 8. The contract should require all auditors to l ~ report all safety-related information directly to the NRC. l 9. The employees and auditors should demonstrate i that the personnel assigned to the project are l free from conflicts of interest. J i i 10. The auditors must recommend corrective action, i and then control its implementation. We are extremely alarmed that TUGCo has provided such sketchy 3 . details about the persons or organizations that will be performing 'the detailed review of the Comanche Peak deficiencies. We request that first the NRC delineate in writing to TUGCo what it expects in a nomination of a third-party / independent re-review to respond to the findings of the TRT (including instructions t to TUGCo to not hire a contractor without NRC approval). t 2. Inherent ~ conflict of interest of personnel involved i in the Senior Review Team, review team members, l issue leaders, etc. This item is, in actuality, dealt with through the independence section above. i .However, any analysis of the TUGCo Program Plan would be incomplete without pointing out that the Plan, as submitted, 3 9 l 7 - -,, _ ~ _ .,_.__.,,_g.,, _,m,.,_,m
Mr. Enrold B. Danton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Nine' I i contains as the Senior Review Team, issue leaders, and team members, the very people charged by the allegers with causing the problems in the first, place. This flaw is incredulous. In reality, the situation without modification, results in the following typical scenario: Inspector "A" identifies problems on the Comanche Peak site with System X to Supervisor "B." Supervisor "B" and Manager "C" prevent Inspector "A" from pursuing his concerns. Inspector "A," believing he has been harassed and intimidated, either quits or is fired and 4 reports his concerns to the NRC TRT. The TRT substantiates Inspector "A's" concerns and requires TUGCo to respond to those concerns. TUGCo assigns Supervisor "B" and Manager "C" to resolve the concerns initially raised to them by the alleger. Obviously, the supervisor and management were neither capable nor willing to solve tlie problems in the first place. They are certainly even more incapable of now indicting their own previous decisions and lack of action. o Any credible response must be done by an independent team. (See Item 1 above.) 3. Fundamentally inadequate program objectives and principles. c The three sections of the Program Plan describe TUGCo's ob-jectives (SII) and principles (SIII). In SII, Program Plan Objectives, TUGCo states that it is "commited to the safe, reliable, and efficient design, construction and operation of CPSES...." We think this initial statement is illustrative. TUGCo is commited under the. law to a code of federal regulations and industry standards. In the past, TUGCo has ignored l the former commitment and embarked on an uncharted journey while paying lip service to the latter consnitment. 3 No one questions the intent of TUGCo to ultimately safely i operate the Comanche Peak project. That commitment, however, must be to the unique programs and. processes which it agreed to through its FSAR commitments. The five objectives outlined in %II are the correct broad goals. Unfortunately, the Program Plan Project is not capable of. fulfilling those objectives. l t 1 (
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Ten Section III, Program Plan Principles, uses ten basic elements for each question raised by the NRC. These are listed below, with the primary flaw of each category beside' it. l. Specific Questions - Is limited to only those identified by the NRC TRT. ~2. Expanded Reviews - Provides for expanded sample size which can erase the probleni. 3. Generic Implications - Only a " forward look"/ horizontal approach as opposed to assessment of systematic implications 4. Thorough Reviews - Potentially a " Rube Gold-berg" search for an acceptable, instead of legitimate answer. 5. Root Cause - Does not concede that breakdowns in the implemen-tation of the system inher-ently indicate a defective system. 6. Corrective Action - Lack of comprehensiveness. First, TUGCo should receive centralized and controlled NRC approval for corrective action.
- 7. ' Collective significance-A totally useless category.
in its present form; only potential use is internal management tool 8. Future Occurrences - Must be controlled by inde-pendent auditing firm. 9. Personnel Training / - All personnel doing any work Qualifications on this project must be in-dependently qualified for l tasks, since the qualifica-j tions of personnel involved, or the' procedures they were qualified to originally may have been totally inadequate. p. (,
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 'Page Eleven 10.- Records - Narrative format too com-plicated. Any data sub-mitted to the NRC must also be publicly available, not only "NRC auditable." 4 4. Inadequate and Unacceptable Program Processes and Quality Assurance (Me thodology). Section IV, Program Process (pages 11 through 15) and Attach-ments 1-4 of SV, are the extent of the detailed implementing pro-cedures offered by TUGCo.- The abbreviated " bullets" of TUGCo's plan do not provide the level of detail necessary for the public (or the NRC) to have any confidence in the TUGCo Program Plan. We suggest that Section V be completely rewritten, utilizing a subcontractor with experience in development and implementation of program processes. If TUGCo does bring in a consultant to re-develop this section, we would request permission to provide them comments on the reorganization prior to submission to the NRC. As a guideline, we include the following list-of inadequacies: 1. Program has no organizational independence. (See pages 4 through 9). 2. Program does not include any assumption or accep-tance of error as a~ serious possibility; in other words, the' approach is backwards. For example, a concern substantiated by the TRT and submitted to TUGCo for evaluation and resolution, should be approached from the " ground up." The response team (or independent reviewer) must first gather the appropriate standards and procedures used, review and audit the processes followed by design and construction, iden-tify deficiencies in the craft and QA accomplishment of their tasks from a historical documentation perspective and,.finnaly, audit the as-built condition of the system or component against a final design document. Then, once the cause of the as-built deficiency has been identified, evaluated and tracked for similar discrepancies, the safety significance of the item can be separately evaluated. .The reverse process--identification of the safety significance, has the very real potential of failing to diagnose a multitude of e 0 W
Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October-26, 1984 Page Twelve L generic causes necessary to understanding the QA/QC breakdown, I t.- i i Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program 1 \\ The QA/QC program for this effort should be a completely.... separate function. Their program and, procedures should be submitted to the NRC prior to the start of any program. Currently the QA ef- . fort for~their Wesponse is to come from the existing QA program. 2_ If that were actually implemented Mr. Antonio Vega would not only wear the hat of,the Senior Review Team in which he id going to audit and review his own work as both a team leader and an issue i leader, he will also head up the QA effort to audit his own work while wearing.the other three hats. l 5. Insufficient Program Record Plans and Tracking Systems All audit records'should be disclosed simultaneo sly to the public, the ASLB and the utility company. These recor6t should include any and all basis--including calculations and judgroents which the TRT was given by.TUGCo, as well..as all data described in the " Project Working Files Section." isee pg 13) More specifically, the record format described in Attach-ment 2 and 3 should be revised from a narrative form to a one page (with continuations,if necessary) form. (We have found that the format used by the TERA Corporation for the Midland IDVCP project was particularly useful and flexible.1 The narrative approach is simply too subjective, very dif-ficult to work with, and unreliable. As currently proposed,'almost each line item of the Action Plan Format includes an interjection of j opinion, conjecture and, ultimately, inaccuracies. Program Process Steps to the implementing steps is in chronological order. Our own analysis of the Comanche Peak problems lead us to believe that change in the os. der of tasks is more sensible. We propose that Step Eight, Identification of Root Cause and PotentialGeneric Implications,fol. low Step Four. Further, we propose that additional steps to review as-built verses final de-sign be included after Step Eight. We resist the Motion.that any rework or corrective action can be taken by TUGCO or any of its contractors prior to any reso4 lution of,the concerns itself being approved by the NRC. 9 m .N
- 1, w.m... -
' -f ~. ... u..m ,..n l ~
I I Mr. Harold B. Danton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Thirteen Finally, we strongly object to the TUGoo plans to not forward the new information to the NRC until after it is a.com. plated work roject. ) 6. ' Overly Narrow and Restricted Scope 1 Due to schedule constraints on intervenors who were required to submit several motions last week, as well as attend NRC meetings with the new TRT management and the late receipt of the TUGQ5 ~ Program Plan,this letter will have to be supplemented as it pertains + to this section. We anticipate submitting this item within the next two days under separate cover. VII. Conclusion i The evidence of noncompliances, improprieties, QA breakdowns # misrepresentations, false statements, waste, ( corporate imprudence and massive construction failures repeatedly meets the general NRC and Region IV criteria for suspension of a construction permit or the denial of an operating licensa. t In recent months Comanche Peak has been the subject of re-peated revelations and ac,cusations of construction flaws, coverups, and negligence. The evidence already on the record is indicative of 7 a significant failure on the part of TUGCo to demonstrate respect for the nuclear power it hopes to generate, or the agency which reg-ulates its activities. TUGCo has taken repeated risks with its stockholders' in-vestments, its corporate credibility and its regulatory image. In each of these risks it has lost. It is too much to expect citizens to accept TUGCo's arrogant disregard for the publics health and safety. GAP recognizes the steps forward by the NRC--establishing a special team to review Comanche Peak's problems and the request for an independent audit, however, this must only be the beginning. j l i TUGoo has numerous problems to worry about, and it is clearly not in its own best interest to put the. strictest pos-j sible construction on the regulations under which they have agreed s to build this nuclear facility, It is for just this reason that the nuclear industry is regulated, but even regulation, fines, extensive public mistrust, and corporate embarrasment have not humbled Texas Utilities. 1tf Comanche Peak is ever going to be a safe nuclear fa-cility, someone else is going to have to put their professional cred-ibility on the line. i This independent auditor, paid by TUGCo, must i be given strict guidelines for accountability and responsibility in order to justify its hard line recommendations. l l l l l i 1 (v
t Mr. Harold R. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 o Page Fourteen GAP hopes that both the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion and the Region IV office of the NRC will give serious consid-eration to GAP's concerns and recommendations set forth above,and implement a system whereby there is a truly independent system of auditing the extensive problems with the Comanche Peak plant. Sincerely copy to service list \\ Billie Pirner Garde Director, citizens Clinic for Accountable Government e O. o y--
Octooer 26, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In tne Matter of
- )
) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 COMPANY, et al. ) and 50-446-2 ) (Comancne Peak Steam Electric ) S ta t io n, Units 1 and 2) ) CASE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT REQUEST FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT LIPINSKY DOCUMENTS In a letter to tne Licenslug Board dated Octooer 18, 1984, Applicant refused to provide the parties with relevant documents regarding O.B. Cannon and J.J. L1pinsky, asserting that those documents were privileged Decause prepared in anticipation of litiga t io n. (See letter to tne Board, Octooer 18, 1984) CASE opposes tne assertion of privilege and requests that the Board order production of all of the withneld documents. CASE and Applicant agree that if the materials sought represent attorney-work product then the standard to apply in 4 deciding whether to produce them is: A party may ootain discovery of documents and tangiDie tnings otherwise discoveraole under paragraph (o)(1) of this ~ section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing oy or for anotner party'is representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, inde mnito r, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery nas suostantial need of the materials in ene preparation of cnis hvery pv D 2R 1 j J ,-~s 2 c J
2-- case-and tnat ne is unaole without undue hardsnip to ootain tne suostantial equivalent of tne materials oy other means. In ordering discovery, of sucn materials when the required snowing nas oeen made, the presiding officer snail protect against disclosure of. the mental lapressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or otner representative of a party concerning the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 52.740(o)(2). At the outset it is crucial to' place the information oeing - w itaneld into the context of the issue involved. The issue is whetner, as the result of pressure orought to near oy Applicant ~ or its counsel on Mr. L1pinsky and/or O'.B. Cannon, Mr. L1pinsky modified nis previously held opinions regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings, and QA/QC related to it, at CPSES. A part of that issue is whetner Mr. L1pinsky had what he had indicated and oell'eved was a rellaole oasis for changing his opinion. What is no t at issue at this point is the adequacy of the paint coatings program as sucn, an issue to oe fully explored in the other pnase of tne nearings. (It was apparently in preparation for the former issue that Mr. L1pinsky was preparing testimony.) In summary, CASE oelieves that Mr. L1pinsky was pressured, coerced, or influenced into recanting and changing the conclusions that ne originally reached aoout coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak. In his original report of August 8, 1983 apout his trip to Comanche Peak on July 26-28, 1983, Mr. L1pinsky expressed a nunner of serious concerns aoout tne adequacy of the coatings quality control program at Comanche Peak. Nonetheless, over time.Mr. Lipinsky recanted those concerns, ultimately culminating in an affidavit filed with the Board on Septemoer 28, 1984. CASE De11 eves that numerous factors --r, e -e %-.-+- mr..,.-,+- -y.,---,.- ,-,v-,-mw-w-,-----,,w-,+, ,---,r,ya-, ..e,r,-,,
. point to tne very real possio111ty tnat Mr. Lipinsky was improperly pressured or influenced into changing nis conclusions aoout quality control at Comanche Peak, and indeed may have Deen coerced into participating in a " cover-up" of serious quality 2 concerns. Because CASE nas a suostantial need of any evidence of pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant the concerns that he expressed in nis August 8, 1983 trip report and oecause any evidence of suen pressure is clearly relevant to taese narassment and intimidation proceedings, Applicant should be compelled to produce all of the relevant -documents which it has until now w itnneld. Tne witnneld information apparently contains draf t testlaony proposed oy Applicant's counsel representing what they. wanted Mr. L1pinsky to testify to regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings at CPSES; the information also apparently contains Mr. L1pinsky's reaction to that proposed testimony. Meeting notes and letters apparently further memorialize the exchanges netween Mr. L1pinsky and the Applicant's counsel on exactly what Mr. L1pinsky would and would not say. Thus the withheld information will likely provide important evidence of any actual attempt to pressure Mr. L1pinsky and of any evolution of his testimony or views thereoy potentially proving that such pressure nad oeen orougnt to near. A nunper of f actors point very strongly to the likelihood enat Mr. Lipinsky was pressured,. coerced or influenced into cnanging nis appraisal of the coatings rpogram at Comanche Peak. First, Mr. L1pinsky never undertook any audit of Comanche Peak
e . suosequent to tne July,1983 trip on which ne cased nis initial trip report. At least as late as four montns after tnat initial trip, Mr. L1pinsky noted in nas " diary" (produced in discovery oy O.B. Cannon) on Novemoer 17, 1983, tnat any full audit of coatings at Comanche Peak "would or mignt confirm JJL's concerns". Tne only " data" that Mr. L1pinsky received on the quality control program at Comanene Peak suosequent to his initial visit was tne information ne received during,the Novemoer 10-11 meetings wien Ron Tolson, Jonn Merritt and others (meetings wnlcn took place prior -to the Novemoer 17 diary entry cited aoove, and in wnica L1pinsky indicated that nis concerns mignt ce confirmed oy a full audit). Nonetneless, my the time he met with NRC inspector Hawkins in January,1984, and certainly oy tne time of nis Septemoer, 1984 affidavit, Mr. Lipinsky, without the oenefit of any new information, nad reached radically different conclusions aoout tne quality of the coatings program at Comanche Peak. Furtner evidence that Mr. L1pinsky was improperly pressured into enanging the conclusions that he had reached in his August 8 trip report can ce found in numerous other entries in Mr. L1pinsky's diary. On a nunner of occasions af ter the Novemoer 10-11 meetings (in which his initial report was " discussed" oy Tolson, Merritt and others), Lipinsky made entries in his diary which Indicate that an attempt was oeing made to cover-up the ) concerns voiced in the August 8 trip report. For example, Mr. L1pinsky was clearly concerned that ne might ce pressured into perjuring nisself: on NovemDer 14-15 ne wrote at least three
- times unat ne would not commit perjury, and felt the need to express tnat feeling.to Norris, Roth, and Trallo. On Novemoer 17, Mr. L1pinsky wrote that 0.B. Cannon President Roth was demanding that ne sign a cnanged Version of his original trip r epo r t; L1pinsky did not. In refusing to sign the modified . r <rpo r t, L1pinsky expressed a concern that "the more JJN/RBR [Norris/Rotn] talk to the utility or try to cover-up, the deeper ~ OBC gets -- OBC could nave serious proolens if federal agencies perceive OBC committing f raud." (See Lipinsky 11/17 diary entry; received from Applicant in discovery) (Emphasis added) L1pinsky furtner wrote on Novemoer 17 that: JJL pointed out [to Roth] that JJL nas proolen in signing a changea trip report (may De thought of as fraud). RBR (Rotn) Decame flush and said that was not fraud, Dut final copy of memo / trip report, and JJL was to sign the changed trip report and place a copy in the clue three ring oinder today. JJL said "yes sir" Duc did not sign the changed trip report. JJL draf ted a meno from RBR for RBR signature (telling JJL to sign tne changed trip report), if RBR forces JJL to sign the changed trip report. L1pinsky was clearly feeling pressure to cover up and ignore nis concerns.. Tne pressure ne felt was so intense that ne felt the need to protect himself Dy draf ting a letter in Roth's name detailing tnat ne had Deen forced-to alter the report and to ~ sign the enanged copy against nis will. CASE. bas no way of knowing to 4 a certainty why Roth was pressuring L1pinsky -- i.e., CASE cannot ne certain that Roth was nisself Deing pressured Dy the Applicant or their counsel. Clearly, other correspondence Detween L1pinsky, O.B. Cannon, the Applicant and their counsel, and any craf t testimony prepared during this period for L1pinsky will shed 11gnt on the degree to which L1pinsky was pressured and i I ..--....._------....?_;_--.
.. coerced into ultimately completely recanting tne very real concerns that ne strongly felt after the Novemoer 10-11 meetings at Comanene Peak. Mr. L1pinsky's diary contains numerous otner indica tio ns tnat -ene recantation of his concerns was not completely ~ voluntary, Indicr. cions that will aimost certainly oe further evidenced if the documents that Applicant has refused to produce are in fact produced. For instance, in notes on his Novemoer 22 meeting with TUGCO attorney Nicholas Reynolds, Lipinsky wrote: "JJL [L1pinsky] asked attorney (NSR) whose side they represented. Indications are that OBC [ Cannon] is not getting all info." The next day, L1pinsky wrote tnat ne pointed out to Trallo "that 2 out of 2 meetings were not wnat JJL had oeen led to Delieve -- what is going on, someone is not aoove ooard." These diary entries oy L1pinsky are compelling evidence that the concerns enat ne voiced in his August 8 trip report were recanted oecause ne felt coerced or was in some other way influenced to change his ' po s itio n. (See Exnioit 1) Additional evidence tnat Lipinsky was pressured into changing his story aoout the adequacy of coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak lies in the f act that at the Novemoer 10-?i meetings at Comanche Peak, officiated oy John Merritt and attended oy Tolson, Lipinsky, Trallo, Norris and four others (see. CHI Exnioit 4 of CASE's Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact), L1pinsky said almost nothing. At that meeting, Tolson, Merrit and sometimes others characterized Lipinsky's concerns and purported to " address" them, out Lipinsky nisself apparently did
. not feel comfortaole enough nisself to say much of anything. By eitner nis own adalaston or the recognition of someone else at tne meeting (contained in notes appended to tne diary _ produced oy O.B. Cannon in discovery), there was a " lack of JJL talking on tape" (of cne Novemoer 10-11 meeting). Those meetings could nardly nave convinced L1pinsky that nis concerns acout coatings and quality control at Comanche Peak were unfounded. Tne likelihood that L1pinsky was coerced into participating in a " cover-up" of his concerns is lent additional support oy the fact tnat 0.B. Cannon President Roth was extremely sympatnetic to tne concerns of TUGCO and even. hostile to the concerns voiced oy ~ L1pinsky. Tnis " motive" for Roth to cover-up is evidenced not only oy tne diary entries cited aoove, out also oy Rotn's own categorization of' Cannon's concerns. In a Novemoer 3, 1983 meeting witn Joe George, Dave Chapman, Jonn Merritt, Billy Clements, Tony Vega, J.J. Norris and nisself, Roth " apologized - again for the lack of security at OBC, in that an in house meno ' leaked out' and nad caused our client such consternation'and new additional exposure to intervenors" (from Roth meno to file, dated 11/4/83, Exnioit 2). In a Novemoer 28, 1983 letter to Nicholas Reynolds, Roth wrote that " Cannon's posture is to support TUGCO/TUSI witn whatever oojective and bonest effort'we can render". When these professions of support for and apology j l to "their client" are viewed in the light of the intense pressure applied oy Rotn to L1pinsky to sign an altered version of his trip report, the clear inf erence arises that the O.B. Cannon . president, tne Applicant, and/or their attorneys may nave oeen seeking to. paper over and cover up L1pinsky's concernL; o
Finally, support for the argument that Lipinsky was pressured into retracting nis initial concerns is found in the repeated insistence Dy Doth Lipinsky and Trallo that the concerns raised in the August 8 trip report would only De either allayed or conformed if a full audit of the plant were undertaken. For example, Trallo wrote in his Novemoer 28, 1983 trip report that "Comanene Peak Site Management adequately detailed the program and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in ene "Lipinsky Memo". (See E:tnicit 4) Cannon has no casis to confirm that these programs and controls are in place and are oeing ef fectively implemented. Confirmation could only De provided oy a detailed audit." Sim:llarly, L1pinsky wrote in his diary on Novemoer 17 enat only an audit, ' which would require four to five weeks could confirm or allay his initial concerns. (See also tne Octooer 28, 1983 L1pinsky letter, Ezhioit 3) Nonetheless, my tne time ne met with NRC inspector Hawkins in 1 January, 1984, Lipinsky was much less concerned with the adequacy of coatings at Comanche Peak than ne had Deen only a month earlier. (CASE is also concerned aDout the poss1 Die inferences arising from the awarding to L1pinsky of a raise only one 'and one-nalf weeks nefore his crucial mee:ing with Hawkins (see L1pinsky's Decemoer 23, 1983 diary encry), especially when viewed in ene light of Lipinsky's fear for his joo only six weeks earlier. (See Lipinsky's Novenner 14 diary entry) Based on the documents that CASE has received thus far through discovery.in these proceedings, there is simply no adequate explanation for Lipinsky's 180 degree aoout-f ace with l
[ ' regard -to nis feelings aoout tne adequacy of coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak. It seems incrediole that L1pinsky simply accepted the explanations given oy Tolson at the Novemoer 10-11 meetings and oy Brandt in his testimony. On the contrary, suostantial evidence exists wh;ch gives rise to the inference enat L1pinsky recanted his Auguat 8, 1983 conclusions eitner Decause of pressure applied to nia to cover up or some otner reason unexplained and unimaginaole. As detailed oelow, a suostantiated Delief in the likelihood of a cover-t.rp provides a sufficient snowing of necessity to require production of documents tnat signt otherwise ne undiscoveraole under 10 C.F.R. S2.740(o)(2) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(o)(3). 10 C.F.R. 52.740(o)(2), adapted f rom Rule 26(o)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows discovery of trial preparation materials upon a showing oy the party seeking discovery of "suostantial need of the materials in the preparation of nis case and tnat he is unaole without undue nardship to ootain the suostantial equivalent of the material oy other means." The allegations detailed and suostantiated aoove and in Eznioits 1-5 satisfy the requirements of this standard: Applicant should therefore ne compelled to produce all of the relevant L1pinsky documents. As a preliminary matter, CASE notes that no time need oe spent on ene " undue hardsnip" prong of this standards CASE i ooviously cannot hope to ootain the sunstantial equivalent of the - materials witaneld nere oy otner means. The contemporaneous notes and written-draf ts of positions taken oy or proposed to Mr. l i e .c.. ,___mg.. ..,.,,,,,.n .3_, ,...,_-.-r. m,__..m..,
! L1pinsky are the uniquely superior evidence of what transpired -- - possiole pressure, coercion, cover-up -- and no similarly rellaole evidence exists anywnere else. CASE's need for the wituneld L1pinsky documents is apparent. If Mr. L1pinsky recanted nis initial concerns aoout quality at Comanene Peak only Decause ne was pressured into doing so, and only as par t of a larger attempt to cover up the quality control { proolens at Comanche Peak, then his initial concerns.still stand. Indeed, those concerns cast serious douot over the. adequacy of Comanche Peak's coatings program.1/ Claims of necessity very similar to CASE's claim in this motion nave Deen recognized oy the Federal courts as a sufficient snowing of necessity to justify production of otherwise undiscoveraole work-product documents. In In Re Grand Jury Suopoena Dated Novemoer 9,1979, 484 F.S upp. 1099 (S.D.N.Y. 4 1980), the district court ordered defendant'.s lawyers to produce witnneld documents whicn tne Government (the party seeking j discovery) alleged would provide evidence of a cover-up. The court cnaracterized the Government's claim of necessity as compelling, stating that an assertion that documents sought will I provide evidence of a cover-up is an even stronger claim of 1/ Tnis issue is not moot if, in reality, the sought af ter oocuments contain evidench of attempts (regardless of their. success) ny TUCGO QA management to cover up the seriousness of Lipinsky's initial concerns. On October 19, 1984 Applicant. suoaltted to the NRC its Program Plan responding to the findings of the NRC's Technical Review Team (TRT). Mr. Ron Tolson, the r very individual described my several witnesses in this proceeding I as the cause of the QA deficiencies in coatings, was named as Project Leader for the resolution of all coatings proolens. ' (See Exniott 5) 4 4 I m c.._-,.-
11 - I necessity than otner claims routinely accepted oy courts. 484 P.Supp. at 1103. (Tne court in In Re Grand Jury applied the standard of Rule 26(o)(3) even thougn the case oefore it involved a grand Jury case, n'ot a civil suit. 484 F.Supp, at 1102) j Tne courts in -ooth In Re Grand Jury Suopoena Dated Novemoer 9, 1979, 484 F.Supp. 1099, 1105 ( S *. D. N. Y. 1980) and In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1232 (3d Cir. 1979) recognized ] cnat a mere naked assertion of a cover-up does not constitute a suf ficient snowing of necessity to warrant ordering discovery of i work product. However, in enis proceeding, as in In Re Grand Jury Suopoena, 484 F.Supp, at 1105, a suostantiated claim of a suspected cover-up nas oeen alleged. Tne requirement of I suostantiation means only that the party making the assertion of cover-up suostantiate its nelief -- the party needn't prove its 1 allegations in order co compel discovery. 484 F.Supp. at 1105. 4 CASE nas offered a quantum of evidence suostantiating allegations l of a cover-up. ' Attached to tnis orief are the Octooer 31, 1983 meno in whien Mr. L1pinsky reconfirmed his initial concerns; a Novemoer 28 meno in wnica Mr. Trallo empnasized that none of the concerns raised in the August 8, 1983 trip report could ne completely put to rest unless a full audit was done (and none ever was Gone);. and numerous excerpts f rom. Lipinsky's diary which indicate enat ne was pressured into recanting his testimony and i may have oeen forced to participate in a cover-up of the concerns i raised in the initial report. Further, the record in these proceedings contains the August 8 trip report, a transcript of tne Novemoer 10-11 meetings, the January interview of L1pinsky oy l Hawkins, and the Septemoer 28, 1984 affidavit of Lipinsky. l d l l
.m ! 1 i However, in view of tne f act that L1pinsky ultimately recanted initial concerns witnout ever performing a suosequent audit nis at Comanene Peak, the record completely lacks any legitimate reason for L1pinsky's shift. Indeed, the gaping lack of a i legitlaate explanation for Lipinsky's shif t lends furtner support for the argument unat L1pinsky was pressured or coerced into i recanting and covering up. Finally, CASE does not concede that the documents withheld 1 oy Applicant are eitner privileged or contain attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Indeed, without seeing enose documents, CASE cannot ce sure wnat they contain. There is suostantial evidence that tne draf ts of testimony and otner documents likely contain proof of improper pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant nis story; evidence of this improper pressure is not " privileged attorney work product."2/ Even if the Board does find that the documents do contain privileged work product, CASE has demonstrated its sunstantial need for those documents. Lastly, if the Board is reluctant to 4 2/ Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, T6 N.R.C. 897, 917 (1982), cited oy Applicant as jus tificatio n for witanolding the relevant L1pinsky documents does not control j this case. First, Consumers dealt with the possiole discover-aoility of ordinary draf ts of testimony. However, the L1pinsky - drafts were very unlike the typical draft testimony case. Here the focus 'Is on the possioility that those draf ts will point to pressure and coercion of Mr. L1pinsky to change his original j story. The documents sought are sought precisely to show enat ene ultimate testimony was coerced and thus unrelianle, no t to prone attorney thought processes. Second, though Consumers addressed tne possioility that draf ts of testimony signt ce privileged from discovery, it did not reach the merits of that qu es tio n. Tne Board in Consumers decided only that counsel who asserted the privilege could not ce censured for making that assertion, it did not decide whether the draf ts were in fact privileged. j l 1 1 1 1 __.,_,_-_m.,_._,_,_._m-__, ---_,._._.,_m..__,--
T allow CASE to view tne documents in tnelt entirety w itnout first ascertaining their contents, CASE urges the Board to view those documents in camera to determine whether they contain evidence of pressure and cover-up. If they do, then Applicant snould oe denied its assertion of privilege.. For all of tne aoove reasons, CASE requests that the Board order production of all of tne witnneld documents. Respectfully suomitted; r-n f $nn C. \\ --n D T' W-ANTHONY Z )ROISMAN + O-Trial Lawyers for Puolic Justice 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washing ton, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE S I
~ Octooer 26, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ~ BOARD In the Matter of .) ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 ) and 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature celow, I nereoy certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Brief in Opposition to Applicant Request for Non-Disclosure of Relevant Lipinsky Documents, nave Deen sent to the names listed oelow tais 26th day of Octooer,1984, oy: Express mail where indicated oy *; Hand-delivery where indicated by **; and First Class Mail unless otnerwise indicated. i Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4 tn Floor Betnesda, Maryland 20814 Heroert Grossman* Alternate Cnairman ASLB Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i i a l / i f l
o I 2-l Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture and Tecnnology Oklanoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ms. Ellen GinsDerg, Law Clerk
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Nicholas S. Reynolds Esquire
- Bishop, Lloerman, Cook, Pnecell & Reynolds 120J 17th Street, N.W.
Wasning ton, D.C. 20036 Stuart Trecy, Esquire
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Rd., 10th Floor Betnesda, Maryland 20814 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas,. Texas 75224 3 eAML1 _ s ANTHONY Z y OISMAN g m
l f ~ Exhibt fl y". i I ~ + ,i. .w. November octonc u..mo., issa o.e.mo., 'I Wednesday
- = r = r s,
= = 1, 1, *,; s r - r,, s I 4 fi S $ d 4 S J 4 4 0 "'4 ,,J-adia" i9 EEEAANA E000""" EAAARQM s. .,g 38 31 $ ARRtw e EP W2d S * /4* *d3 4 j M r cf 4.M 4 u.*n-p.at,bes cetY Of (Aof0Scb ALDY thd f - jf14Rt.ir.- (JM) uj Adreb 7o #:.doul 4denou! bd das - T.cosa. P.AT ,o 2c,thu zw dad u2Ac - 4.MMirr 141cer.xz:n MM f.j.u. -.o Ac7uw 70 ikm:L Afjd 1107~ AETued W/o JJM (fla M.:nkd obe f)*cr ufo.baF:ves Mu ,9eog Add pad t T.tcad.wl9 kT - Mt-.% s1L M S'TW U HOTEL { T.drad.qJad - usmno uL w her ro cars (,, bib nef iMT.or.As 43L c P Iko mt. d37 MT.r-ro do over. iX if Rqccr) -33L /dthrb "~ ,134 70 crame.r A.+7- .t T.t.0 uAl.u)[ AhT ~ id wasib dJL oF TrurArt02 Eco P(., MTT,. 'q45T}oA.f O UMTl IN80 - Tkt Jh MA,Ms'.% 4)L Th&T ~).il. CAN'T~ $fALp MfO96 70.bUC.t)ft %[ (iigw.r) 4 ?\\C.k-Op RAT AT J Ft.d e.lM M I @W ?.A't od STWrut (,lspp.g g3 sed 3 k T dcNA. sd' H.t>.GRIfin! ( Alth) DiT Uf MTE. f FOL IMS 44 ciliI/l.s,lO .y y y +. J_ L
l l t s 1 's t' ,s. ,/ I y January 1984 February March November surwras s u r w e a s.
- s. w r w e a s, is3.ss n n u n n tr ue
- : = = =s e n eieie,=
-Thursday i s3 e s w ee n o i. = = ir is a n si seie ir e n ir o u is w ir m u si n n se n io n n oin n s i, a n ni a rr n a m u er m a n a, 7, j Id g MirJ., od 5'8W - SEE' TMc5 / TAAIMAipr-4 ?lk. MG.lbshconibds GlW Y) M J. j i og sw.y,eab ofTrb.JJ A VAW W W 4 pig y i t, t..G Aeiread DJ Ad l ** 48-3 v i ? M'd'"5
- p.,
- w.. oc 'ro DL) A, err b 3 ,i y dikeass a - i m rie irr g. gisvg .J.)t va'oi.mso nua oF- . I,i nroa Fbcda t'Asl'1 (M'LQ. 'tE% sh R.if Wsef A q gg - ML. jo,,'inua ouT'.THNr cas74. i : r}fy t-l l'! picggay-dh., WrtL 7107" dWit8'6 dF ywg renas - H.&. GKi3'PN To W #d' Rotide-I H6te. As.30 'TO dET* of MIN CA.l dk .)" dob e arv.c R2,+s t 7 0 Tai P f i tpr- .),)L usetA7' o Vabt. h W N'icIt.4- (.#4) I @M OY lYlY Y%WMr$ $1YXY/& ".)4 ty ~ ).} L fa:i.t,a b o 0 7 M 51CA. IMd.co.tAe.in - J]t T o c.42.t H 6Cr Arkir-edl fl s4/[f'd sw wom.uu w anc u>c[u. eer P ATEM pT-ro P'e d h ' otf r. H M D L T W iP L Ri xx.y sur.Fircr.h - H at.'. svard Twe7 n+e I All.c. is odi r; Taau. ~ co/ cede =Wro saf THe a-r er nw.a. nv, x wr-e e.g i P p. e / t l C.. +
- *"1 i
=w e e9* e l [.. l / j-4 .g .z-
l Je g 9 .s' fr.l. ) . L' 4. e. e ? November octoe.r u.'s., au o c. 5 \\ e Fridav 8"'=*
- ='
=='=8 s 1 133 eS t23 234 58 7 8 6 ? 8 9 le vt 13 4 66 F 5 910 l e is is 13 33 se is 33 se is as er se og. te 59 M 71 FF P3 M 1I,
- l it og r3 se g is sp 951F GS #9 M F172 30 ft F2 23 M M M
'1 23M atM TFM M 2FMMM M M 27 N N N at M 33 j"!i .1
- wq q we Id c.e(.+aaodri e..
I (s, g,j m seu h m is q e -l R.TDg gca Tc4 A-f" -IFl w Au
- )a.Arr mit Repe.:r,P '#10#-,-
i.- s 6c,sunar To Mr-
- EVE (,212:cRT.e est) Mcur L0m/ k u r i n A - P.u. o p e. m. u p.
,I Ph scur ro 41 Q -4.E2.ut (OMad -tu aciaveu cwenn ma wr fh ro AAr rec. Fxco g' concur l.u'Tosere4 aca w iilq $ .j no mw.y dscoes6 seina.J Mh uwu upt.&kt ~ro ~rosca wy THae i is Mor.t T w ou r ve u s 4 ot: :nrc ~ @ AM".M[r 'c MAdod j 4 Veterans Day . - = = e, g ,g 8 o 9
1 l s s o ~, i s. I l a - EN . ~4 .( January 1984 A Fetruary dch November ~ s u. r = t rs s u t w r a s. surwta: m i .,.n.nr sa u s,e e is n n,s e .e ,,, Sat / Sun. 33 u is 2 s set I v..s ,ar,n,a., n n si n 4 i s m u ie o n ss sa annunun .u n n t,n n u, . i.l ananna y. 8 13 si 1 \\ g mix. Ye.ewl. @lncb.c Repc.ncu is ..A i3 3 wu_w Ircer weem m si a ce. e - 1 i.: Au uu.oc., = 4en IaTJ gwaa.apua -opnc Jul ed MA'wr er*rac (echer, e,cysaa e g. vo'er coa ,.a ea su ac.,;g,,g,,. 7 ~* N' ed TM7asy )(G %kbi' - 3M m fwise gamy, heses af cAer T, ,r .,o t-4, m i; 9 .I u .C ~ Vi / 3e 3 y 0 .g _.__.....m.,,
l l s e. T. f.- g e1 ? e.,1. .5 ik s . u l1.. ?.. s. I* November ocioe,.c %..t r isu o.e.me,.r r 7.. Monday ., t ; .....r. . r.. n., e e n ir o u a u u ve n ir = = n : u = n ie it w ir i. = ao ri re se rv a rs m a n e n sa ti n n u a g a m m ar n a rr u m m a m ar a n a si } i i n
- 8'I
- P l.
[ 4 T". Cod d. d ld'Ek' IW (U#8' coara wrn6e i .5,,- 4 r.ccee4. 41 H.6.GRIFW4 (.Mr.c)i4d.'s. OF coar,% u n dY-(w>W orato 'e coWb A c u,.;o rie..ry r m
- P
- 55# r)
'l 4.htAFT ww.rs HAM ASA pit'/did I A//MW .same (.nsa. eunskret f/Afr 4*6MPEutg ,j Sa.ca b f44.ALs.4pa) s tRM wo.li~ OVM. evonatoi es.t.y (ej**) 7l ud eHansco cary or Trip Acpocr- ,.j io4e acw >e a.xcu.in- (muo)- wasJ7r.t JJt 70 MJcd. &&rt -MO en sapa.sss.ut rq stark cMw st.ctet.7- \\ + T.caad wpa.bwv.iu f H.L.GAsti-d (NAC) >1 rm =eur *=. w. duce poo p w i ? a, se a n. wm on ~g ~ Mon.0 DEED isf') Gct Cut.t.EMT alnsAhor.l .l (.-Gbs et Der bMosur oD af AMC) -suuc.m ta. m r w.as.u.npa y Nuod smn* s m 8c.*T76u To J.% DApi.6/Me:2JT d N 8d - C4Q M84 May piga gc. Q (hit 38I) IntiWT' 147' a g m oor saraa. =r m-pye n.,wr uMr aos*vs FW TtQ.friaA11cd 'A FIL.E h0b E5~ #U CY ~ Dbb n g% if Fli d 1 RA/E b.15.r.x +n Mer-Ad.iie idAl4EF. A KMi3G RS 'nu r.Ln. wru. stor y tfuLt. t Msa.r. V21.) r.).>uf 9er..r so.a rw in.,p geers f.* tcT - r 63. saia Jct **suiM, 4.e oa-ca . r-e.a.aon D C0 h.e :co,'ak,. W as 3 Aut t;. 400 12(if v, / = s, e ,4 I
- t I
a ** g
I j e y 5 3 -g ha .f ) T 1 d"""'Y "' F e mry ,Marcti November 8 88 I # T 8 $ $ es f w F1 8 to f w t t .J,,,; J,J,,J,,,,, =. ? .3. ,, 3,. Tuesday. 1 l. 1 =...,... ,,,A*EEgy "gy*ygg / j g gg a n urn
- r. _
- *' u n n a ar a n a s, a
i it L f 'S'TAAT be:*t.f [s.04. -Co QAt.a. 'ro uh j A ElA CAu.z:n ilL. /4 M.t eispie.c recsr web.ng i Y i fler.ddit,- (x oPDFr*Cc rT) dr*.Q is.arr. Trmoon ~ ~ asse,*r-i MA TD4.A,J.M.DrJ.Irr- - huwas s-t,y usa, AtM %' Aid,4 fe,.aan.it.boc-
- 4
.i 'T0 @ & Lan g',pmJawl I, "'j ki "* IAICNT Uf1Cd ude=r b AvA&d 4 4 W E,s. /4 p // h g / #dsvd'r s p i* _ Ar js ct.nfrb sy aw,, ns tryja u TRif Mft' ATE intr ($&f., 4 8 Q ,h ang Tas@ i.tffwetan,47 TRsf defb43 ljgT.Agn. aft eal THAT If.A. eaa*Mnm.Lu. To M*4t 17 4. creena priem-) ~ na,1.nmar iner no ou. royrar irwa.tisa.s mal
- )
tT.c uaj.WpAT (!ar.f.tWed 4 Mar 44r as d4suca.tr ~ o ,--ag w rva p u e.,~, aw ao wer w. asr R NA,1use od 1 sty AfMr'; Ant'.nria <>->J ssit 3 k AfRil..T.ra, caen titr5&D Aosed d
- 6 A -r.e.a4 u,y a. # Ar: de eves. 8,L6A osame.in b*c.v nwe JJi.
w,<.a.,uar e.,,. ir-pneust w my A r i r. aup.m.us w4.= t=: *~ *a a r-M8EArt.h.JJi F emed 8?" Tl*" Jaa-Tits.e. ins a 7.#s4.6.asr. i ago mois,r ed. ama 1teses stpses sM4fndR.*re4#.yer fum sty 4 f.a ud.q f.M*A$ct fur f4, suG4.sen rwarr .J.a. e,,u. a4e .'[ A4.) virt.a **tnout A.E f d A**'a'6*o 1*si At ";**f-f / I JcuJ ta) A1Is@f. p M A*,. -ercririro <>=s) fv4/J '7.f.J o 7,a, 5, i Mlh. Certd.$ LJLI 8-O Coff 8l' Md'I#I#f 88 M4' E A t q ; g q ve pn /s. e rs adasj #07,psajoid(,. ( A,t r.o. a pggy 6y '10Geo t cr.Muti 040. fMn4. 446*'99if /Cd7.84; ggg to est 13damer'ir. saJ Ainfeass4.s arreca 7as11'.e.sy ) . O) gedj& 4.0Hqewal enc =0 48 6.fff (a7TL E JJ4I AEfowst: 4 Ctr OH biLht)3d 'JAAI Hofo T.6![4** (1U6'*Q ef*')s4 yo+.osc htK32fAPE:4. Af:.xk'.tJ" waarCr'f s o 70 Ota,1 f eel.4, E,s W. / rWoc Jr'f Cl" 4#rt" ?"' 'Af..tl - AfM l.cr,buse,o 73.g i o1l Apr! eff dd (Geff CF 100jo,s.sc. A cyst,*s.ir<! E i ha, tie A 1D EfAo kJe c') i 4 T.CTw/41. ta)f RAT,hhlt.' gD RA.7 6Al A14412 pay.'ar q,v mms a ALCO iA,(p'c%) st.A T e4 44f }'e'c,: oid At. opinic'4( T1w1-01/? t J.5'}N.aa isA e' teo A0f n VAc bcnraal, law. j WW Tft 8/ y' tutrr. & W Gaclail-r A4fu4t. Aet'au w t-
- 'lilh L.A r Tier. V H : s'i.'
t=sts amtelt.a* TPeny q 2 t ) e e g -+ ~ /
- t 9
r_,,-- ,,_,,r., ,~ _ .m
g e i t l .. u...
- .1 November oe m u. w im o.c e
Wednesday 5 = ' - ' r s, = = ', ; i, ', ;
='-
~ id,*,44J4 4J44304' .'. 4 4 J 4 2 3' ass cur CUR 2*** 22:u22; g. m 38 p.a..a.,>] w (g m a m.cl<s) ~ ur umowlu' - m e*u" *r M m.) deco-fD1I N JJL i 4 T.todd.d,Mid -TG0.c pg, med sAi.6 A.I07' 6coc 'ro STulas.m ssuer HAs.e Lan sof .IF REoecuas M4 u%AT -11.-10 Tht-mM/ tep..tw - aa<_ p,wreo em,o auf N AfM /MR. HfbibilAltr fAEst (.lLbokk,. N MLA. IIAEt*3 Wl 8.cT,mt.3 wo fA.22f I "' M ElID ~7D @s5Dod,dk,,. og W Aqbtr W Web .JJL ilut @ rHe,r E ~, MeM. A D o.d 'b.b. W aej % t o.r. 1000 t-b AJc7 ' bit e.dC 0 AT Au. bug 'to ODMI.bnd71rrurs -4kl MkcD m/ issur 4 4.1 R<wD NMp+yee Mrlet.s THnr tats 7x.av.opico To cac-i Wit.A.ov+ic.c -J.)c_ s dp yew nor, w i A*neot1 % etsrac harr,mik ^ 40l mwd L4' - JJAl 4,'Mu JJa way JJL Sin uo r % A a.c y ', w m,,,u, 4 treem raw.JA si.a m.i W .bd.5'O 71+*9 Hr (.couuS s'twD cspj/ l p iu wee eonew k M M 'r0 GET L,g'ai?YouT 0F 'rcu))) ut ( b a i. ~ l r,.c u =. m s: e m Cth t 1 M.,._lk. lG KM TRV ~ L A 81060 HRHeST) till*l3h .Ced4 dl4IN .Nt F\\A0ii. He03TDd fc FT'. J J O N yggp,p A Mp..fAid. TMr rmt usual
- Y LL*47 ov0. sa % t s HO N.
i f eg (I'd QLb Cd Ali> T 90 bt" Uf"U CT l1 l1 hlb + / ~ a s { g o ,, es ..e, --.---m. ..,_._.,..,.-._____.,_._y_,-r_,--,_m.__,, - _, _ _.. _. _. - _ _ _ _,. _,,,,,,,, -
l s s g , " ~ .M ) 3, }w. t = s g e .,1 k * '
- Fa'*y unch November
' " 's " 's '.,s,,,,,eea. aur=,,, Thursday s w a.=n a 'an 4 sar.. = = u = o. =,,
- a w u ne = = i,
) m,m,,,sun n ra m n n :, a n,, a 4 i.- n s n rs n n e. j ( m a ri n a m a, h,=1 $ 'T. c o.a 6.1. J }~.U N d eA tt > p g,e m } &m6u pow. t h w. 13M S40 044. tW 4 Ar Ri##=. (, @ FsqrLY {,l. Thswr 1JL. LsD** dn (bygf of T*.ir Reyes.7 .JJt 4
- Th*r 43L i Kr C. r=w.is s Aswc i [.I t
gxpi.4,l co vo -L"J Qas.r eru3 tJa. n.4M s.ptocsn.
- cepy *,* 7<asciuas 1'{.
(,s)< Ra.: O RbA setfIa*ns. ftJoa. 're w'edmew coty W. r, c. ~, m e,c wr e.s,.~.r m. ,oer,%f eqLr - an*in. ~1k*n) THW -JJL I' A cm TWNF" NeoDY so,.Uxj oc lac Rat. D c~ t.i PICOM ddN Cef t,, of f.sy0L*T"wname um oua,m), f (J = .~ - n. s ~ + u c,e. a n a s u m u. r. c.,,,c,,,, aon. via OTHet 04?ML as. n.Mic. OM 4.48she*ea.a. a,gw.o) A e isys pas iesr) n/s.h awa 4*px. en .m. at swa-gy w ssu.bu.aast. - u n )aa e s dia. m. e a c e er='.s.s a i s A Ls,, ptAT As)*L4 aJJ' An' 're navg*.U g,,, fy Ask -THAT \\- l~ stLa t%~ CH&dcQ le}/ Aalt) AM 7Nti' aaove O 8,r .a igu owr - ut. enu:ro ya s,*. fmr-aa<
- I Cib ua7.sidd w c HA.J @ W f m eer n
., "%ph owu (._ w...,, o.e _,.,,,,, - vryr. uu. q dr. am %,,,, ---.-. i .s.w eaa u u ea ese a.or m re w,. 'l} ~ C M M o % :..Ut v Stirst unstarc ntify (fsMg Lhu'yet,,t ej, gist m pf,224..t#Ehe Nar yAffst) enor sesb sr l -l tar Gmb we cous. aux raw ~ut g,,,e,mu.uor si.v 4 cumv wer- [ -a.1. uyuma e.,auw n. -, e ar.aapu . w. ro n,e uns iry or.r<y in eor n. up rn e.aer, u. si. .osc dans - c.M c.m.6 nortsexicer y*e.suse : /'I'3Ca as. e913dWsiss fase.e.k odt! dre .yr,/,4, ppg 4/H"sEf'ActD A % M AC1f64* Ia.1t)idt1/Y3 MAW.kNAl, {% !vsnroe.)djgg62 l } - w o 6 a.s.> r.u yw J.y asu ia.;.swn,m. n s k a.c y' d so t~ =.Lis A de!*se s a yypgss 10 filTsd b.lSt~ j p Ag p s.sp.;r. f.y.e.a st-fAceA6hy =,ce a MAFEf" 42,( apV l serrer le.1:n w.uo,o r
- Wda**r aa sty l,,,,
u p
==yee. Jan.<gern m,p ay.cr o TiAld.% 4 fjg*gl S q* gggggy,,, plp,ly, i -t s l = -- } 4 8
- e...
L g g i _.-..,_r.
ee I + ~. ...y. =
- i
.)
- .lk:
-..a G .G November ocicew w , isu o.e.me,.r .} ~ Frida*v.
==raras
- =r r
s ~ i =r=res 8 4 234 34 re %334 i e p 3' ay a g se gg gg pg,, = = n is ia = = = = 4 =ir 13 .e 3..., -f.' i 18 SF = ny n n'O n 2122 M 94 ft 23 34 m at er n a ar se n n 30 vg 33 pg gy p3 p ujnIn sa m ~~s.om '<== r esv ,e m u st m a n s I r~ Q gyg.c aar THer uL. M*3 Pu.** 'il f4M*- i } A eHsed4csTK'Y S40*Y ("#Y *"* ^* " I'#**$ i y ga,w ggogn ny.s'sia '114 Leser Nor s*M. w p,y,,, ar,y n,*ranojrn Qr s c att~
- =u DL **'
,gt h y)ief Cof #L144"O TRJ Jg we t, Lor par.<z' Ashco[.e tMaDeAffCCT A480 lbd4f8" d4 088/ /
- R'eny~.ht. SAC I
_ y 3(g, y anO apr' Jiamil pr\\C.lM*Us o ?giy Ap c ps, nap.TEp A ',*rcarc byer deal fttt. ASA r/eAforset.s= gjjg,, s,)s. 90 Did QMarssa 7ts,.s ufoer) ll* A*.at '" m.ue, ro aiht 'ryg ar+ewca 1xof Asper
- JJL. Mt04.Cte:D ine/AAA. w+c Aest ser.as rsVp sesper r 3
i (No nenn -Mor EPet.so ;ggy ggy.ut ens Gesaxago w n k)nd uor Ylfids-19ter.2L A't!.osa na skre. A;so, sn[s j ^ - saaw ***aa atso. saakmn r>rs r wav.no,44 ,,u tusah m.a.,o
- MA C8MJef).AArm Twi+fseerw.le.eria J/4 W r k say a;,7 l* 4Ad. 44wu13 AcWad uniry ch.<
do britt. ose .ht. pa,are,.ur asyrar rPred i' kshwe t*<d t f00c. <De M 9' N A C Z w tJt) CL,upeq,.tsg, LTM*f 18 Ndt /Uv45.rkerseo semac i.>arew asutagg { ~ P12, dt.cD taHWT ovus.4 ul.ony uunant dAact scaogy,} Al.0UY M04.'r0l*to Ctf'.***sitD MUAY Urnd 3ufa ~ -lL 3810 IF U11Uly OrWl.e WMT Tksty Mter usu,,ys i
- t. oat..) nar fr.ovt fut rorf dA ??tt' 'TkDc '7?rzat C.oMr.nr Ar t
62 MI IIlA rcy tauu) T f.eTH s* M f Ut. ht.r urfory .houtt) wAvr peu.i rrry.s.J4./s'to<.wir 7 ' M, air,i rrs= m An .Uu ra>>cArao rus.r Psca co i rpsssok.rderrH 4JL dM8 M couria:ot JL a* Maut.r - Atx ss'm 1.sw u.tc m }. All atir j.UL fr.~. Pt is'y *f=3 WATk.t.. /.t d LW,rN1tio - 4' tget,p usc,UL. csas.,e su as: .sru re:ney :.r,41.sy:ar afrec 5 04vP a.rr A=W '( yws.rpe cra. Ae fMswo Av,; cal. ).16 Quito T.t.A. /) 64aDC ed n4# 78trs** Adds t TJesec ads / aggG t w w,ou .n,,. A 7.fodd.d djM ('51113 Hr.: csr silid 'WWe'rt 4T-eW t 4 c,da 9 nr4 (.* '.I'ls wa ma r n/rr)==o > O'*'r s.vieAir goia; e,.e. ro &,,oo.r e et wei2 0 % u r.u.7ra t Me%J a.It ALL.,, 'ths gy a iiii, T{le9T* d) L ei.4 7 % N-Y hN8 M. i_s ,. u v. o g gf/9 i?.a, Lid..E) 94,M" Isis [ t 6tCA r St.M Ctfe.'K, l 3 \\\\MLS bluC W/ K/+T~ ltifrd# OF
- s.gsa i s4.44/
- u,a n a..,sa i+r Il t.pn.ss.. r
,'w i e. v.au oli, ar.wsn ". = " "..,,,. +. m e e e og e 4 .g e 4 %.-----'-m~' ~ ~ " ~ '
l l 3 a. + I .c' W 1584 Feuwy M=ch. November ' L e 3
- s. u,.,, s, Sat / Sun-
.i.,.....,,,,,.,,.,.,.,,,, , 3. I I ,j. = = ir e n t. o - n n s n n si n n s n n s. n .e,o se a n s, s r,,,, . nna'ya w y e~n, n ur a - i,n, m. ii., m. sq,s ~, t. g s a p orer.s O x r). prps co. W. 4 At * *
- C A " @ A0 an.
a,a. u aw ~ u a,e. -.e n... <,co .w. - r~. 1 - a -w a f i e oxwtorhain r..aa.sl.w:. a- - m out.,ip a HAcFahesis M M **
- W N
- 1 la 4
n,v,., a.,n <w,. n tw,~=e #1.,a .uu
- n
..= go. - of-a aa~- % i '; a t,w a.a n. i am.-a an ao.o k *l'*[f') (# ""y*Y$$Y$'$
- N tr r
l '.1 t... g .b. 'll,19.10 f3 PPS t SW4W l'T)/Mut,1' ad Md ,m. m m ma.uma l U .l .7 !C5 J +P I L I n 5: J'J O 6 Op a ir) e. -+. .. = / e e I .g .e e
- e. e.
4 g .,._n_
~ l l i t t* 0 l e* . %.4 .g g 1 Novomber ~j oce u,,,,,, w,n o,,,,,,,,, p ^ Monday
=='-'rs =r=,r. i.e.,,.
== i.r.8 ..8 834..S ...,33. E3"32 g;;==n=na ananna: .:.j / i = = n = = =: :,
=
y' k 2 ordsHra(.ar)!!/co/.4 f^vh w~Mkd.,
- s.
1. em.;arparaarjm&a-iaV".u.no'"*k" 4+r ut ety*! m m
- "a
- i A"r *!
- ,,b u. ;
J 13*r I wtw(w)rma t,o oaw. esm/04.*www.:a .y4 'AI T'K'i*yisk on A coes ss..n**a.? WirW.ars .m 50toS~pr.s (.gr)s/arj3 % L6t'**1934Ar M W *
- 4al f 4 w Geiisg,, a t w n. 7idt l' O '
- W * * ' O
,\\ '{ MELP.d.K.L cal 1TAsN't/iff* hfNdEOCD ~NAMT Off W8/f 3Ll X G W $'r Aft 1;C G iM Ull 24 #f TD Aigroc.r To waret.ke. To %)Go Anaeulsyl MLWcar raps >.M. (in heatted tpartars avr u us l - Ds m.ra Mr wm up 9 AAr **ia sser,ers. saw ro mee s<ms castezas u utsseIrso.Vsdnn 4hl 4r creerue.yu cak]AsqMr.un. mnarr e 9.. ri a.c rA, a = n M' 0%0 sea and af.safG 19 a'd N'l'A Atymler
- A6L, MAT, (*.l)l.
a scr wear,ex am. mr* ou iavas \\ .a ,e eing,r tardi']kys caud.sysor ss:urwana av siM tu emaa nu mar mo' trar ue.
- AJrivirrs/1tH e Jacu1Y -N.rr Mai w' Mk.'r&os r
e-Mrs.se !>r dI s ggje kWr.) f)&* Un*>W /*mawr - Mr Adaza ; Jrd 7746 f /<*.'IYMWbO)'W
- '*4'
- t. Mn g
(,y,gg) o,e u.rt/Affkk/
- }
2
- ~
1 .y gjg ggrigy.19 L.A. /Al Anjosh's* 10 AKik*,s.A f g ida, u. xAtr.U6 ~ s p tn(.ashilhtL?3 M *YW $ W W p i ngama W h6'4** * "*'Q g;g ptp.sc onc MG.* nlaH0 o' LAO'" d p ;,a u. je e noor p.Asviau W/"^F Tf. wad (a.p., Arsaq' 8f 8 #f'8 e U #- .' l W T MiD **f u lf Q *&,,,w,aActyy Jur' f.Mau2D '**Ub MAY',are-cz. e q s.dj ,y n w e m r a. a,. p DIDc0 :c IGMG-f].I i '~ '""' I g .g k gg ,G y,_-- -,.--,9 .c-.y., y, -- - -, -. -, -, -.v-y
l l i s .g g p. J"'ary W Fenary ugrch November
- " ', " ; r, =
==,-,,.....,,, Tuesday. ,.,,.,,,,,,,,-a,;;=- i a -,.,.. - = 3 m= = =,= =,,. 2.., m,,,,,, M a s m a r, rr n as a n s, se n a >ss p $ W W ~ 09.$0**'ed (asr) to g3
- ~a =
1. tw peu. r~~ ~r.c wa
- '0%0 la'4.G l'7/*M 4: r)is} nap,opyg, k,
W ) Alle x m / m e t u e. 4 a, w,,,,si o,,. Q heaw~a. n ~.apa m4 u .~ l914. * *sasse 9 au-mat wr ers, s-svi>+,.n. o.eso w 1 J.avr Arm 's /4,Jonesa dwd A414 JWE. dd.**ce'd' 5 /4'J o ever) I, MG MA4"' EVarf.pf1Ms@ 5f87* 149 Jf F8 C43 A's4/el.19 f.rWru,).8/ie 'p,e .c. pus w.er>, /o aawr 4.we % IF.A. 08erza reses,.n.aa..Jeds -4, 74'ssa$ "wr~ /*"<MP 13Mue**s' JJL TKIf kttsr;.Lk. M2r <{,eadd .ad/AULj.3.!t s toMd..aptrLa.I.s ; 114. AeusArsaasb ; Mtsf. IAFears <<,1 a,uu o e n crnet. rss.n wsaar Cyt) :nrou .6, 'A l7/5/eise & s ht ho use meyes, rza., yty,en,,,,gugp o,-Q
- f"*
7 'f" Al Se #1Cs. *r.Csa.laf 40[A4'T@,, fue.v sales,d- @ Ant.ony ases41s 4Jt.f. Jag to oc 9 :v.ansay & A. 7tws ne i 6J.4. foismo e.rr we,rr 8a14 ****urre is 6. e t.uce asirwn., -AlsA Ms.es is ele oee4 toe as twe waratas 'I St f,6fo u,> o ade. .a.4 yes, as pacge.sm O ym,ai..*ry eh. smaasen. Ann.ir,*n, icy <n.r - aomesr .* r. n /tcr, Aze a faa. A u -ut. aph,4u sh Dt, Asp,u ps7pg,,ugy (pyg) uesar.rs tiua, rMrf icya,es,. cures n I & p}st's)dorings aaMr Tiert ut if.ntor W sea sdo'iG %u1* 414.10 /*W' *s **Qtl' ,1 yJ a,,(;peqg princuey *D'8'-M# M. mc73e. 4da O M M. pm, ,, nut gasyc5 'n Cn's't***' N '*W l I y3g g y pest,,xsoL /Ath*fD **f#"' W ""# # # l rr I,gg, png.,jpeg pem j. Lit tossf.20"***fN 'd{Whary yg,, y,,, ys.o4m on/ 43# oMine s#4 *h 8f' ~ 78 AW 8'* 84 g tad ea.
- 4 m sts / A 88'*f'" **d
- " #'/ OI '# #"""" *# ~
.uvetn. uorar.e <* ^ $ JJs. amasaF., ro p.nad.nsmes quA.'s4 ~Jad 70 wa- ~ o o t - o.s yA*c:rware, Kenscodhis-Ssses a reens a,
- A A u ss s N al.L Mcmge f s'f>pearmsaair nowr *gs, gag up 73y 1
(d.M.*t..erW ip r.;ta,, se.ac Ami A rready ~' 'Lh.tS S Mt"** [wtSirt 'H81" Itlef et % M1R,1C4(ss.eJlg 8 sp 4.*f v40.m. Jdem.3 nave koi ei s,.) ts.bs. msert"7Eip j ,N of H(6.a.l4 suftt,r 8 -= l y i 4 y-. w-g--, _-..,y -9 y---w,.w__y,9-.-.-,r. w,. ,pgy .,9- +, -, - -- -. r,
I l 3 I ~ i .t .c. .?- } ' hi.. r. .,' i..,g l! I November oce.r u .,,in., an m. I. I. . Wednesday
==,-res [ .,!. = =,1. 4,,,'.,,:. t , l !,J, 1 . = # ie u a n,=,, n,.,4, g a'e s. n ar a m =, = = =,i n meinnann ,,,,s, erumm eor &:ws(.ar)..twr3.ix.r.w e.or w a.c us,er.t oar o* b. **me. Ator awnt Jan. sens seul Lsu w Adubvr = to et a sa4 b</p.tw,ad 12 Mca"steu,'sonb
- 1030W (,c37)88/JJFJ Upm. as Ia*@f*as'(cz7) n 4 p.as.,9Ar ud.os'.x (L'at*****O Dl M M 3 s
s x x a e u *as > d'*"*
- ' '"* 4
. g m.,s a,-e w.y sur.i.aN P*A W:'- "I nW N QC kl.%'i ,,,,,,ir w)
- e T K z.' b a c ~ r, s C imonw - ~
~" m M / r w,,.a ne ao,r & goix m h J fb4 10 W, y y,g,sou f 7 W 7*.]J4. AbC g gg.fOLT Ct* .m ,_j % p ja. m Ad W edMlu. q,ar rtvc Ata'r c aurb.r.? /P #Mu dad M AYl** y pp(men.w) Did ID %
- # # ga,,,,,.o wnr r'+* sW y/4.nvuy1Wac/TVoz.
ddd o l 6*fto OFMt pir sword.yaj;r; re M' 06.anI*C s ,,,,,adsnha seuant M$sr/4y5-
- 05. is '*" "'
70 % 9 a,s.b w wf)kirsM.utb Il:Jh3 W .5)t xmy. e&*fa,pgy,4lg)y isn u,:c h s*fGoa M OT
- ' >2ne w "
Mr
- T skat'JW W g pasgua.
p p C MflJ,L/hk9W M BjfDff* Y y,9, lci.4x/.29 elEtilac of e hfL O f alli fjf THl.t.h4 W N b 4 .y't two.M #/*h(,y.to J* 4/M uM pitsmo3Aty,y,_pn,.<waopp ccd"Yl'm i sper.+r ser '. pp w y,,,,ayaa mra ~xau p sea l ' l 'j
- /
e.
y, 7-
,,,-,y --p.,y.
l I . i.. a i ,1..,. - t s ..i.. a.. November octeo.c u mo.c issa o.c.mo.c F j
- "'" E3
- r. 4 Monday
- "',"i'.t
' 4 ' 4 4 J 4 A J 4 4 3 "'4 i.J a l i.:3 r,
- = ::::""" ::::::
2 'V Lad ada z.rrr +> nas/sx.(yur)ouay
- nu w(m).lar'n r.caad.u p.n w an..
I )i ad weoata) m ww.r,sm,v,e ~ ,,a wow,e w e r. m tar w f e r.4y.pinro.wr ~ ',. oa ydivbs Mc onens c cooya.nr. x n14bRec (ar)12roen Flicr A*T r-m.r. cony.,0;ssy Ay aoviw ca] i, -gaoal dlF.HkGKAle 47atO mwof Jg on Atikc. fnoof ~ gp ou
- / 2 g's: #J N6. 7RM.fessjm-
.et)$50 trar(er) ptr Stktdesieb T*AT s! 4.ht chrwer A).nyWodt ok! AG % y c y a so;uizw. o o, To R +T m ucx ..j pyy-J.)d tenut b Alor EE hAl.E TD \\
- ypovab2 fH&V-!O $0?.Y
L 1 'gg paz.y! 10&&E5'r Al.& m'TD RM'dH .i y,j y.u.)gi& T SHodl.b C/hR k #U'C
- t..
1 1 4 ~ i 1 s s. t ,g-- ,,e_-,,
~ ' I I 'l l .s e. , Q_g ~' I .larmanry 1984 Fetwuery g g ~ -- --- E
- "'"','.s, Tuesday
- =,,,,,,,,,,,,
i ,,' ' m a a s e,..i.e 8* P-s' s * = n.a m ss u I-n,=s a = ng 'r = n a e,j a m.na,,,n,,,,,, g g = = w.o. =,,,., x,,. I ' k W Soln'4*(Ebi)tl A9lr,$ -r. "jh'p Cuc a namy) wr muAu y _ l 1W fj31. WM't Att*4 rsk) ed vyco niog, 4(p3 J',' 1 afkNAumasluAc)- warru ed a. wuim w my 722. mout.b Mar At Abst to gnauosafer.is'es outf Adare M .J Artuvar A x K H4de.Att to fv Not 9'4MA"IkNJ MAN * /5T"W 1.6eM.u}lMrA (Tuscaonnon.N27)trA. At/nG2N57JJt f.eja;> so /~nsannow wr A b - As.ro sp4 7e /. MA' *
- 754*v Jh. 6Asss site'me =/o
,s &*10Af M O M 'Y % !! O* 5 5 'fyg. g'g b tg' est THot 415 **Me E%It toevtb sc t wr M ((.TVMe) thy,gsjs., w A/07 /Auva".Mr'wnf et M i AdTY /N (fB/044d 8# /Yl[#J p(7lm h g jgg "10 (gss n MM. % @yM "A CNe'tA& .' 1 kg8}sa A&R, ad 07M'tw ( Aag me<nked wiu w,9 a. we Q w/acA q'Nac. r; a vs e w r od 4 rn w.v iul en 3'nc.
- o boe.dle T.ed 4v3.cesseme sw neunoi.,a
,i nmv umn wex vi.erer.) nr.no uf w. c isti. w o d ed c.y.4 x ?., 6 i O
- C, g
+ O 4 i
l I s s o g. . a. i r1 .I DeCembef Nomew Decembe 1983 January 1984 [ e Monday ,, i r. s. s m ? w t, r, s, s, u t. w. t r s,. su w s . e e e e s e n ir e -e,eow e.. n is a w ;; -
- .f a w a = is = a n : a u = = or s=iseea g
.se to ar a se a a a se se ti : rise r as a n n at M 6 . at a s m se n er se n a si 8Lf fit ",7* %b EA)7 rih PA \\ lMidMWEIILf W !O W W Y# WJ T* Uud dO,IN [## ] '"Ar, hap -Jr. Aat*b I 4, gp preu mie A/us won ~ ylp,ffe,,o.m,4c y n * :t 8 b a n y g,g y speu.,44 FuiAT* M * * **'0
- h "i
s zeer renc se PGt FN " W,,'ao gehrJJAlodAl'AL'"'"'#l'*lD' fY $ mu.undfaten *""" GM 3 E* bW ** pp t,w l Alev ?*tet **- w -r. toaa.M E W'2**. (m) epeu.e.en Hab was 9,. m 5' se
- m q A r.ka w a n.,3
.j Y.hMar i "' A "# " ' ] .soent' w N d ? w 1 3 * *.
- ib ' *..
r," m A*,, se. , g}, p,,,,,,,, g, l . ~ i t l 4 ( t / i e \\ .e i l l
l I I -6 I ,t 7 SCO M er h December 1ssa,% 39,4 Wednesday i -,.,,,.,. " * = 1.,. e.
- u. r. w. r, s,
..s 82 CAU.sb.T.TL. n,lm Rag oppi RiiG = 25$$$i! I ~f Wl s/n t; y9 l g REA1) { CommaJr ed /dAie. Stur 10 I .TJL 06t. ( ur) y A/J'.A., ALM AEK wini 04re s u .1 tiaro. (AgA LA723r me a.J14 70 Givt NFA 7MC Mfeu) /6/s/4/T. GJ.*Ml 10)KN l'Afec) 0' MANE.NR -j rue maar -as2A x prr.) pn iruovt.weMk.ao 1]L ro enn ^ R M z u s-s-e /.glyh ev nr rw. /kg/a(son.- M a nor N oM Mn
- s. aa s.c ~
m 7tkb m cau 4 p wegt.A g tj'c w m l es r) f f. w d. a / R H 6t M O Lg> t-MatsAde* pg. poorteves (MR m ' W M pasien, yna wm e xic'.) Isfrfps sc09ss(ezr))7.catN "Y ** H**d AIR.,Hrsc'ftbe'c" (aca,pn-9f31 s ^/*ue(.mulofodra,/Mpasur hw;w H;' i.,/,l,.a L,c a;u ) w r " & <l ~ r pg.eggsauso-M.<e ha f m *' ,may sose txacur9 roe wl p],In anoam ser *a * *~' ,,f,f. m > s u w * *
- r to
- 8
, n- - e, 4 g -. ; or,.,..j a i g-0 6 [
I. l t t g l a. ....a e. December Novembe December 1983 January 1984 {pldgy SWfWf p S S u ? gr f p 8 3WfWfF S s e2 34 5 1 3 3 8 33eSeF 4 7 e 9 to 1812 eS e7 4 9 to e e is to t7 s3 64 13 se at is er se 99 9 gg 33 to se es IF vb en er se og M 21 -=. l M Pt32 F3 N FS M te et N tt F# F3 M 77 P3 24 79 M 27 M 27 M M 30 35 M 3F M 79 30 at M w Je ~ 2bibet'.fpht7' ACY r=0 'N RAAItWY"b*1"'!{ung '7*. OAlst. dlJf,,9g.ssr LE97 MNA6d" THnT* '1J8.- 4 d60J Alo't" }sa.i' M#* *U '$'NS ~N' mg ,ggg sA. tac. wlLL dAU. $+t'k 70 A*'E0NYM .j",gaajaf gJJjf 0.n t4)6ct B.7) 'I#1d 'IN 'UQ*C. floh DA. CFF/h m.Ljg enu.A Mt F4,4. /FFMar A.jlo LarFT Meissade~ r.aou..u.y M# (OM F-L.A 0 4'f r * /* #W "), F .M e A NCP.'Tt*dd'**'" (* * 'YT U $ !) ' ~ ' Q,ceat.a)At9A(lS/IMF** S T M MI'" " J'/AY" ~ . g m..m ja aven.fc. ~. z .~- 3 .s , e : e... r. q..,, p,,. 3. c.,,,,,,,,..,,,,.,., 9; s e 6 w t - - +. y.- -e g. e r 3 -i-e-
.wap
--g--g- - ----. w
l I t s I I t .d j '[., 3 .I 3 s* s. e e .t;, .. J ..l a I 1 DeC8mbef November December 1983 January 1984 I { goy 8mfwfF S SWTwTF S S 'u f w T F S i l L J 9234 S 933 1 23eS4 F 8' 4 F e e to 1113 4 say a e se e o se et e is u ~, 8 83 es e to 17 se se og tg t3 te to te v7. vs is 37,is se at 21 1 e todr Hed. (:nT)1*/'*[8h T' **dd Y 38 21 N F3 M 2S at le se M M N 23 M FF 23 M at N 27 N 27 N 29 35 N N 37 as 3 as 31 3g 3 31 4
- p. u o u a c c a u ) w n w,o ^
- c "
- w g g,., rez :lqjg4 h) dHIEssa IU Mo"alldo yo ipow ra MfA To #E}MW g 'n ceu Msr THen' dowM W'S 31V1Ab ~54Y*D
',y;jeg pg,( /Altej'r3 ADurf ABA 1 y r e y y. w a.
- FM. ; X st O' M &
Ay g g g *p fx x/ 4' w t i t. M N A A Y N W jggy (gxy) /A//6//J 1,8 7 1* s*f M A G d' Y#ftesr) I'/teju T.t=ad. * *P a . t (,Afstt ~25l1.) aAl Ac30ttfDUS 2% AC$'* %) Misettsr)/9lit, 5T3-{.4/ tHicAso a s/3'-f. embl NUM M: yyfrg' d5 ayM.t'A e e e
- f
- I9.g%
.g, S.g g M.,g .,.,, g 9 s' 7,, g e f* I j ~ -
- l e
[. i l s.
- g I
Fetruary Mare Aone December su wres sutwtes
- urwt r:
Tuesday .}- .ir = =, n,s a a n,s,e .e s ie, s eas easa ser s.t e,,n a .e. ir ie.i , ie se n n u n n.r o w . e s no nun m,nsnnu n e. . nunn nn a n u n n a s, nn I y coed. e)/s.&P k **"* v, { l .1 ,$/n M75.dl## s y,y,, par < pax nkas n wa** '94 -(' Y.f,adAl.ff.MMUM.t"dC{/.2dAt't' A0O 0Y lW* 1 p' i' T/N4 1 t~'. a La 1 6 M9
- 1
- a-p.
i. b 3 g .= g
- \\
,t g e e a,.<. +.. . g, v.. ..g .. -3. ..,.,.w.. 4 .4 I I 8 h . =g e w --,--,-m- --m,
7 l l r .l 4 l s December ht,w December 1983 Jartary 1984 Wednesday au wraa savwrae : uewras i.t ei s: : e.s.s e s o i e i e 's ie it 's 4 : e, e e le l 13 w 4 Eli #F te '9 ft ta 12 te se se 17 sg ta er is se M 21 n o io u s ,JB,,21,22.El 24 5 M .to.4 M,.21.F.R.23 34,77,2,3,,74 Pe M RF M I e2 i D. Fue wkW. M W o'**M*e ~. }!i .,qyo p.e.e cm.r) m. yw. wrx-Wr 1 ' d. w y a n u ( r..se w Ca n ) *
- a w.,
m Lagtg MM sycav A7 *'/S00Nas d2T7) - 4 eva. Nur of im **UY -hi,y m g e rou w ea k w *+ "s % y g eeijss.1Jg QU.4t 70 *Tn 12 y ,1)t, Ale r 5 ~ ko,erm sinrus TW4i- @n A' W m aer ea,que m m - Nrx n winer-Au f/'rk *t.r ** */)^^ r (,) y H 4 0.da M ea & W RA r -3;;wm n.it Aerox.r nwameo af Asa -cdeo s se add a $~N w .)Jt. 40tiitts Al.M W OL N 0/ nAdt* i on, tf d@ aur' M PM*cx Mar ~ N 4 bisweg.o w w w otwaa Am r,gja.csa 14 //f//3 719 4W . :.l % iS'lolhecGrsr) thwa uf'A4T* Mikn.y hvied w/Mr xm ufMeA.sjht.u). u e s 5 = e '.?
(.-. l t .l .a +. ,} DeCembef November December 1983.!anuvy 19M e- .'l Friday ....3..., .e ". '., o, ri
- 5. " '
I A nu,nnunn m u se s. n n u n nu n n er n uw==r== n u o u n = i, g i 27 n 29 3e n n 3r a n as 3. M 3e as I 50 9& NWf $57)Ml-1bl8L CDA(Al "l 0 a IN
- g. gN Dit. AFT o r d3L ' RET.M4fi(JaL dD j
ger mive; 26 ~ w w. ei/ct-guemar who - om+' """"", c a n ~ Q * ]* l $ ,a fme i J.lL'r.wryr. j JJL *F* m.ra.mtroy WNM j.3,AW ~ '8 gg war pswobs ims, cast Mr crr(M 97 bay no hM/ f Ro.'M '5' (gg r#3 "Me*** W M " #" gp meAr #cf 'M P8PPaf hJd' ~ro ide. A > [YF ' AC ' 0 1 " " C'S g g'# b E s W b r nr. S G J g,h E.nM "Ne #W D'*T' Q ueT Aggive - egy w W cexJr %,)L c[o xAtsa e.a. sou uc .e 1 n .s f g s . = +~ .i t
f. i .,w - l * / c i 1 i i i i Apn1 De'Cember Fetruary March J. su7w ra swt=vrs
- ue=vrs Tuesday t2 3e 1 23 1 7 34 S4 F l
64 78 9 te et 4 64 F G 9 Se e 9 is ft 1617.tt 1713 ts 1213 ed 95 is 97 is et v3 v3 ta 16 to 17 819 as Ft l wmetanaa is is m ai a n = a n a a n :F m m m ur m a s a ar n a a st nu l e t dj ON e-mee .tk wswhf i 4 i. e f 4) c*. l,' J I e ~ ,e h g
- y l
i I i i s-(. 1 = \\ 4 e I ( t y ~~
- t 0
~ -.... -.. - -.....,....... ,y- -,, _ m --m
OLIVE R 13. C AN N O N Q S O N. I N C. zxhibt #2 i DEPARTMENTP.L CORHESPONDENCE 0 '"* # DATE SUDJECT__,-$"'1 N"3._WI - Dallas Heiaguad ers - Weihn': day 11/3 '33 - RE: C0!!ANCllE PEAK CDATINGS Fi]( cc: JJNorris, RATrallo 70-kuorh FnCM_ i Joe Cuorge, Vice President - TUSI D4.vc Chaptan, Corporate.QA Manager - TUGO John Merritt, Jr., Assistant Projce'. General Manager - TUSI Billy R. C1.:ia nts, Vice Presiden'.-Operations - TUC0 Tcny Vega, QA Manager to Chapman - TUG 3 R. P. Roth & J. J. Norris - O. B. Cannon & Son, Inc. 1. Session st arted at 3:00 p.n. and was principally on clients reaction to August 8, I?S3 Joe I.ipin:,ky trip report. In general, with only a three ( day site visit in July, 1933, certain of the positions taken by Joe, and s t att.d as ' factual', would have taken weeks of close examination an.d evaluation, according to the clients peopic. 2. Ri!R cpologized again for the 1ick of security at OBC, in that an in housc. aeno ' leaked ont' and had caused our client such consternation and new additio.ul e recsure to intene nors. 3. In nauwer to RP,R ~ specific qu stions, Billy Cis mants said that site Q. C. reports dircerly to hi:c, also, contrary' to Lipinsky ueno, site QA Manager, Telsen, r. port s t o bis.md not to Preduction. Dave Chapman readily. con-fitued this. Further, Teulson is a TUCO man and not Erown & Root. 4. Joe Ceorge is Vice President and has completc charge of C. Peak, lie emphasized that Brown & Roor, currently are essentially haLor Brokers and he is calling the shots. llence, a's 2;uggcuted by Ligiinsky nv mo, whether Brown & Root would be receptive to, or responsivo to a Cannon audit and/or ~ the findings thereof is a mute point with TUSI. JJNorris raised po nt of writing NCR's, or the lack thereof, and Cler mts 5. i and D ive Chapnan e cspo:ul d t hat nothing in 10CFR50 requires "NCR". TUCO clect ed-to have. 'u. nut i::t'actury reports ' as their mechanisin for identi.fying construction or equip >..at deficiencies. l D/Zjo ~ g L
'Ot.1\\T.it 11. C \\NNON r, SON, INC. e k !!ceting 1USI - Dallas !!cadquarters Page 2 6. Minoth asL d further who has responsibilities for generatine, QCP's, Q.%P's.-nd QIP's and Ch.ip. nan answered, TUGO, threu;;h Toul uon's gr oup. Jack ailded that he was pre::ent, when JJLipinsky ras L with Toul::nn and Toulson's rir. ark about 'not his concern' rel.it ed t o~ the Plant Lice nsing Procedure and not to JJLipinkys's voicing his view of the qu.nlity of work.end inspcetion at the site. 7. RERoth sugscst ed that to further addrea:s C.sunon and TUST concerns on t he Clar.s I coatings, and recognizing its been three ipnths or bett < r since C.,nnon rade any actual site inspr:ctions, that Cannon set up a Taskforce Group, to visit the site ASAP and take shatever Litne is required to corac up with a realistic overview of the coatings ef fort, c.pecially since the retr'-fit program was effected around the first o of Septenber. 8. All..;re. d - uc were 1. hanked for coming to Dallas on short notice and l the i.veting adjourned. ( 9. R' moth to set up the Taskforce Group, to co:-?.cnce site visit November 9, 1963. L t t 1 gP15'- R. B. Roth /s ( 1 t
2 OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON INC. Exhibt #4 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE November 28, 1983 DATE i.4301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Reporl .. ort B. Roth 4 i p_ 3
- ph A. Trallo l
) y
Background:
Cannon Personnel Concerned: Robert B. Hoth - President and Chief Executive Office Ralph A. Trallo - Vice President Nuclear Services John J. Norris - Vice President and Project Account Ma, nager John J. Lipinsky - Corporate Quality Assurance Director M. Keith Michels - Corporate Quality Assurance Lead Auditor On November 4,1983 a Cannon Task Group consisting of the writer, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky, and M. Keith Michels was established to perform follow-up'cyaluation of items previously addressed within the scope provided under our Consulting Services Contract
- with this client.
This follow-up was to be in accordance with guidelinee set forth in departmental corrcopondence from Robert B. Roth to the writer
- and the principle purpose detailed was to evaluate the nuclear coatings retrofit program at Comanche Peak. Key areas included:
Haterial Storage and Control Painter mechanic qualification / documentation Working relationship between Productien/ Inspection i Status and adequacy of documc~ntation/ traceability Implementation of coatings retrofit effort, see " Painting i Minutes of Meeting", pages 1 to 4, dated 3/15/83, as prepared by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engincor Compliance of Nuclear coatings to Project Specifications requirements i Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in l i place, as per proper Industry practice, etc. k l = - TWO Purchase Order No. CPP-15245 i De7artmental correspondenco R. B. Roth to R. 4. Trallo, 11-483 i
e CLIVisil H. CANNON C, SON. INC. ~
- H-8301 - Costings overview Task Group Report TO: Robert 8. Hoth November 28, 1983 Page Two
( II. Preliminary Preparation: The writer discussed the operation and, purpose of the Cannon Task Group with the other participants. A point of departure schedule was established in accordance with Robert B. Roth's memo guidelines, and preliminary checklists were prepared to facilitate orderly progression and review.3* The intent was to have OBC QA Services (Lipinsky and Michels) and J. J. Norris (Account Manager) onsite for wh'atever time was require'd to complete the necessary reviews. R. A. Trallo was to visit the site to perform an overall evaluation as to the effectiveness of the Cannon Task Group activities. Commencement dates for site activities November 9, 1983, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky and M. Ke th were: i Michels onsite to begin preliminary reviews; November 10, 1983, the ~ writer onsite to insure off ctive implementation of the Cannon Task Group activities. III. Task Group Activities: On November 8,1983 I called John Merritt to advise him th'at Oliver B. Cannon personnel would be onsitr November 9,1983, and requested that he have ava'lable the folllowing information for review: Organizational chart with names and titles of individuals and positions filled Copy of current.rovision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with various onsite departments,'organisations and individuals List of names of all inspection personnel and lovel of certification List of names and positions of production personnel (foremen and abovo) ! -( List of certified painters nnd systems for which the painters arc qualiflod 3* "JJL nnd 10C1 Coxmche Peak Trip Plan" (il Pages)
- =. OLNNR B. CANNON r, SON. INC. H-8301 - Qoatings Overview Task Group Roport TO: Robert B. Roth November 28, 1983 '( Page Three III. Task Group Activities: (continued) i Liason'or interfaco person for quality assurance, quality control, production, and other departments in order to expedite and aid in the performance of. this review Mr. Morritt requested that any reviews conducted by OBC sere to be performed on a joint basis (ie. QA and Accout Management). Cannon personnel were onsite the morning of November 9,1983 At that 3 time J. J. Lipinsky gave a copy of the preliminary review checklist ' to John Merritt. J. J. Norris and John Merritt discussed the checklist and Mr. Merritt requested a " kick off" meeting prior to any formal reviews or implementation of Cannon Tas,k Group activities. ( ~ It became evident that the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities which had been previously outlined I were not' coincident with that perceived by TUGO. Mr. Morritt requested a review meeting to discuss the concerns of the "Lipinsky Memo"
- and based on the outcome of that meeting TUGO would re-define the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities. The review meeting was held commencing Thursday, AM, November 10, 1983, with John Merritt chairing.
Mr. Ron Tolson, Construction QA Supervisor, started.the discussion. In essence the "Lipinsky Memo" * ' ras used as an agenda, and each memo paragraph, or statement, was discussed and clarified. The meeting was recorded and the transcript has been distributed for comment. It ~ became evident that cortain statements in the trip memo ** were incorrectly stated or misinterpreted. This was principally due to the organizational structure at Comanche Peak. (ie. A management team consisting of individual's employed by different organizations.) (
- 2. - Departmental correspondence it.- B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11'11-83 3
"JJL and HKii comanche raak Trip Plan" (il Pages)
- l
- Trip Heport (JJL to Illiit) 8-3-83 5. "Lipinsky Me:no Meeting on November 10 and November 11, 1983" ' . Q
01 JRit 11. CANNON Q SON, INC... c----- H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report TO: Robert B. Roth y November 28, 1983 Page Four ( Mr. Tolson explained the operational
- roles of the individuals involved
~on the Comanche Peak Team, along with their proper titles, responsibilities, and lines of reporting. Concerns raised in the."L'ipinsky Memo"
- were for the most part, based on observations and discussions between Joe Lipinsky and site personnel.
At face value this "infc'rmation," would be the cause for raising concerns regarding the site coating activity. Throughout the course of the November 10 meeting, it was evident thaC atte QA Management at Comanche Peak was not interested in further audits, or program reviews, since they have been subject to numerous outside and internal reviews and audits in.the past several years. These constant and sometimes. redundant reviews, compounded by the apparent personnel matters,resulted in short or clipped responses, which could readily be i misinterpreted. ReCarding areas of coatings material handling, personnel qualifications, non-conformances, and quality responsibility, Mr. Tolson discussed the current procedures and controls in effect at Comanche Peak. This detailed information not readily,available to Joe Lipinsky during his site visit of July 25, 27, 28th, 1983, and on which visit he based his August 8, 1983 trip report to Robert B. Roth. r Comanche Peak Management stated that they do not feel they have a problem in the areas of concern, as raised in the "Lipinsky Memo." * . A detailed indopth audit was not agreed to. However, a revicw of specific items could be scheduled, or program " paper" be made available for review, at Cannon's request. After consideration the Cannon Tank Group decided thnt a limited review was unwarranted, since it would not provide sufficient support to a statistical extrapolation as to the entire coatinJs progrsma' ofrectiveness. Detailed discussion and information is provided in the notes of the g November 10 and November 11 meetings. (Reference footnote 5.) S - Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-8-83
Q].WI'.l?,13. CAN NON C, SON, INC. H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report f TO: Robert B. Roth November 28, 1983 Page Five
== IV. Conclusion:== The Cannon Task Group did not perform the total overview function as originally scoped by Robert B. Roth. This was due to the request of our client to explore and review the "Lipinsky Memo"
- in further detail, paragraph by paragraph.
The site meetings of November 10 and 11. 1983 resulte[in the foll: sing: i The concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"
- were based on limited information and observations which were neither investigated nor discussed in sufficient. detail, during his site visit, to either allay or to confirm.
t Comanche Peak Site Management adoquately detailed the programs and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in the "Lipin' sky Memo."
- Cannon has no basis to confirm that these programs and controls are in place and are being effectively implemented. Confirmation could only be provided by a detailed audit. Such an audit could be redundant and certainly time consumin'. Further, TUGO has g
neither requested same, nor is it required by the referenced Purchase of Services Agreement. ( Based on the informstion provided by the Comanche Peak Site Organization we can assume that our concerns are unfounded, however, affirmation could only be finalized by further effort. Ralph A. Trallo l RAT:jr l i 4* - Trip Report (JJL to HBR) 8-8 ; l . ~ - -
OLIVER B. CANNON Eg SON INC. DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE _. November 4. 10 81 EU1 JECT Jnb !!9301-Coatines Overview Task Croun. Cannen to TURT' com,nche Penk TD-R. A. Trallo. J. J. Norris. J. J. Lininsky. E Michele ce? APMe. Aeer File .7ADM - R. B. keth 1. As a follow-up to our Consulting Services Contract over the past summer, for this client I am assigning this Cannon Task Force to perform a Nucicar Coatings overview at the " Comanche Peak Nucicar Plant, being constructed by Texas Utilities Services, Inc. at Glen Rose, Texas 2. Task Force to be: R. A. Trallo - Vice President - Nuclear Services J. J. Norris - Vice President !!ouston Operations J. J. Lipinsky - Corporate QA/QC K. Michols - Lead Corporate Auditor 3. Site effort to commence, Wednesday morning, November 9,1983. Joe and icith to report on Wednesday.
- Jack, till later in the week.
Ralph may not be able to schedule from three to 'five days may be necessary. butThere is no established time limit. the best judgment of our seniet manocers involved will so ascertain. Ralph is designated as Task Force Leader.
- 4. Principal purpose is to evaluate the Nuc1 car Coatings Retrofit Program that has been in effect over the last 3 to 4 months.
include: Key areas would Hatcrial Storage and Control Painter mechanic qualification / documentation Working relationship between Production / Inspection ^ Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability S Implementation of coatings retrofit effort, see " Painting Hinutes of Mccting", pages.1 to 4, dated 8/15/83, as prepared by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Enginecr-Compliance of Nucicar coatings to Project. Specifications re-quirements. ( Overview as to adequacy of current saf' ety-related coatings in place, as per proper Industry practice, etc. cac 315 y -_4 .w,ey 9 .._,%,y
O!,1YElt D. CANNON Q SON. INC. To: R. A. Trallo, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky,.K. Michels November 4,1983 Re: Job H8301 - Task Group Page 2 5. Separate individual and objective reports are due to Task Leader and his composite report shall be submitted to my office within five working days af ter site assignment. Ralph is further charged wit.h the security of'the reports / observations given to him and his composite report shall be directed to me, and no other copies issued or distributed. 6. I shall then communicate the results of our effort to TUSI. 7. All costs and expenses involved shou be rubmittM in scpra::a axpanse envelopes, with appropriate receipts and cicarly marked with Job fH8301. 8. Any questions or clarifications to the above shall be addressed to my attention. i .,.l - l p g
- n. a. noth l
l (. 1 e
a memo wrc b Page 1 of 4 JJL & T H COMmlCHE_RIAK TRIP l Nil.0: Organization.11 chart with n.vnes and titics of individuals and positions filled Copy of current revision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with various on site departments, organizations and individuals ~ List of namrs of all inspection personnel and level of certification ~ List of names and positions of production perso*nnel (foremen aad a'usve) List of certified painters and systems for which the painters are qualified,, Require liason or interface person for quality assurance, pC% y> quality control, production, and other departments in order to' expedite and aid in the performance of this review DAY #1 Revic'w QA Program in general Review QC Procedures and how those procedurcs related to the OA Program Co over QC Procedure numbering sequence Review site organization and responsibilitics (both individual and company) Review Retrofit program'(why impimented, still on-Oning-why? why nut?, situt has been accomplishad to date) Tour Site (contaimient, p. tint shop, warehouse, calibration lab, etc.) NOTE: Dadge :not as tim.? allous ,,r
Pany: 2 of 4 DAY #2 Non-Confirming CondLttons Review existing NCR's ( Revir:w procedure for unsatisfactory reports to --- determine adequacy Review procedure for NCR to determlnc adequacy Review logs for NCR and unsatisfactory report Review status tag procedure and logs Review NCR and/or unsatisfactory coordinator status Procedure and Specification Revision. Control.* i Aeview system and procedure for changes to specification and procedurcs i Revicw controls - assure tha't only most current revisions of specification and procedurcs are utilized i ( Examine nn. site situation to determine sequence of work activities g DAY # 334 Material Storage Review procurement docunents s Review rocciving procedures and records Review personnel qualifications"for receiving personnel Review product certification ~ Examine reject and hold areas (review tagging procedures and logs) Examina facilities (t ic reprencntative batches and determine if procedure followed) 1 Review warchausing records Examinc facilitics and check calibration of recording therinagraphs (exanine certificates of cong11ance for I Instrun"nt4, calibration rcentds for instruments, i pursenn i fur individuals perfnrining calibratinns) Determine traceability of material frnin receiving to in place war:: (nico buim,1 Icickwardc ienn in place wink)I ra.i uarchau: tin 1 I we
- Pagc 3 of A DAY #5 Personnal Qualifications g
Painter Qualifications 4. Revicw indoctrination and training program Observe (if possibic) class room session and field quallrications 'Revicw documentation on personnel qualifications 6 Inspector Qualifications Revicw indoctrination and, train'ng program' i Review personnel qualif1* cation with regard to level of certification Review documentation on personnel qualifications Auditor Qualifications Revicw personnel qualifications for auditors (( Review documentation on personnel qualifications Audits Review audits of the coating operation DAY #6 Calibration Review calibration logs Review certificates of compliance for test instruments Review traceability of instruments to NOS Review training and qualification of calibration personnel / Review docunentation of personnel qualifications S I i,. e ,_,_m_g _w .-p 7 -m,
t e Page 4 of 4 DAY #7 & S Daily Inspection Reports Revlow adequacy of daily insacction ecoorts (compared to information retrJirco by A:ISI) Determine traceability of records for representative arcas and/or items DAY #9 & 10 Wrap up and tic together items that were examined earlier. 110TE: The above schedule is tentative in nature and is not meant to be nil inclusive. Arcas or questions rajsed'during the review will be purcued until a r'caponse is' pI;ovided. e o e e G N O 9 O e e e e N e 9 I e e ~,m,
\\ r a *o eh to COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ga DG (C P RT) G Ho e TUSCO PRESIDENT $d M SPEMCE Z>
- U 'O J3*G l H
>3 P. SENIOR R EVIEW bh TEAM c) :3 Od L. F. FIN AR 1 a DE ~ &S. GEORGE l p g, J.C GUISEAT p. Q 242. =?i PROGRAM MANAGER CPAT AT. WE ARITT. Jr. s' l ~ I I I I I I ELECTRICAL / CIVIL /STRUCI PROTECTWE COATING MECHAN! CAL QAtQC 'i TESTING PROGRAMS ONSTR. LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LM POPPLEWELL C.R.HOOTON R.& TOLSON C KMOEHLMAN A.VESA R.E. C A M P I.e.. E b. I.e.. N.a.E.k. T. d. t. I.d.a E.e..M.b..M.e,E.d E.s..E.d..R.e. ' W f.V0 GELS ANS MR.M SAT 8 A.VEGA S. FRANKS I. e.. f.h 4 I.s.. I.d I. d. s E.a. B.b. M 0 8 JONES f' M WARNER A.L ANC A STER h E. c. _j I. d. s E. c. P-3.P. MARilNOVICH D PATANXAR P' ~ ' G. S it L e.S e. A E. CAMP I &a,T n r,lk 3 R.d
- 5. b.
o,< (.,
~ GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecritur Avenue. N.W., Suite 202 Washingrori. D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 October 28, 1984 Vincent Noonan Director .s _ ' Technical Review Team U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 10555 Re: C;.SE's Brief in Opposition to TUGCO's Request for Non-Disclosure of Relevant Lipinsky Documents and Request for OI Investiaation
Dear Mr. Noonan:
dated today to Mr. Ben Hayes, Director of the Office of InEnc vestigations (OI) of TUGCo in suppressing and substantially modifying therequesting an inve opinions'of Mr. J. assurance / quality control program at Comanche Peak.Lipinsky about the pa also enclosed a c<py of the brief and attachmer.ts for your I have information. (I have sent the letter to Mr. Hayes to the service list', but I have not docketed this memorandum.) \\ Sincerely, 'W s = Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director Enclosures \\ \\ h ~ 4 9 ' ^ J) 2e i x W ~.- i I P' ,. ---.-}}