ML20138G355
| ML20138G355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1985 |
| From: | Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-477 OL-2, NUDOCS 8512160300 | |
| Download: ML20138G355 (18) | |
Text
4-(
'4
" LATED CollihPUMusacg C#c US O
December 12',*$98g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f'7/fT 0;-
m..k.m.
G, iW NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
)
(Application for
.(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
).
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE'S SEPTEMBER 4, 1985, REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.741(d), Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.,
(" Applicants")-hereby respond to CASE's Request for Production of Documents, filed -September 4,1985.
The following responses are-made in accordance with Applicants' offer at the November 12, 1985, prehearing conference.
At that conference Applicants agreed to provide responses to certain of CASE's requests, consistent with the-Board's orders.concerning discovery (Tr. 24',151-53, 24,161-62).
Applicants-agreed to provide their responses within 30 days of that conference (Tr.
24,160).
Applicants have followed instructions 1, 2 and 4 in CASE's-j.
Request to the extent they are consistent with the Rules of 1
-Practice.
Responses to the individual requests as to which Applicants agreed to provide responses are set forth below.
O u
4
. Documents will be produced for insoection and copying either at the site or in Applicants' Dallas offices at a time to be agreed upon.
CASE should contact Susan Palmer in Dallas ((214)
. 979-8242)) to schedule inspection and copying of the documents.
By providing these responses Applicants do not waive their
-objections to such discovery as irrelevant to issues in either or both dockets (Tr.24,151).1-Further, where requests are insufficiently specific,.as framed, to permit a reasoned response, or otherwise overly broad, Applicants provide responses in accordance with the Boards' directives..
Specifically, we explain herein why particular requests are overly broad and interpret such requests in a reasonable fashion in order to provide meaningful responses.2 If CASE has any questions regarding the interpretation of these requests Applicants are, of course, willing to discuss such questions.
Applicants reserve the right to move for a protective order should differences arise which can not be resolved informally.
4 1/
Applicants' previously set forth their objecti'ons' as to relevancy in " Applicants' (1) Response to CASE's 9/4/85 Request for Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Protective Order", filed October 9, 1985.
-2/
See Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings; Board Concern About QA for Design), LBP-85-41, October 31, 1985, at 4.
(" Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings)").
v.+
e
- 9.. - -
,u ww--
y-
,e-,
---y--
e
-r-
%-i
7 APPLICANTS'-RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Request 1.
Management and job responsibility changes.
All internal documents relating to the structure of key.
a.
management changes at Comanche Peak beginning January 1, 1979 until present including minutes of_all meetings,-minutes of g
2 briefings of the Board of Directors, the CEO, and other owners of Comanche Peak.
b.
All internal documents reflecting the actual changes in management at Comanche Peak, the basis for those changes, and the justification of those changes given to the individuals involved including minutes of all meetings, minutes of briefings of the Board of Directors, the CEO, other owners of Comanche Peak; all the written explanations provided to the individuals-removed, transferred, demoted, reassigned, or in any other way affected by management changes.
Answer:-
As framed, these requests are unclear as to the class of persons to which they are directed.
The' requests do not define-either the level of management intended by.the term " key management" or " management," or the organizations as to which they are directed.
Furthel, a request for "all~ internal documents" is overly broad and not an appropriate form of discovery (Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 34 (1976)).
consistent with the Board's directive in the Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings) to " interpret (an overly-broad]
request in a reasonable fashion and to supply documents (or answer interrogatories) within the realm of reason,"
Applicants l
i l
= - +
,-y
-._.,,,,y.___,.
'h.
t
_4-i interpret these requests to concern management to the level of persons in line positions reporting directly to the level of Vice-President or above, employed by Texas Utilities Electric Company (or the predecessor lead applicant, Texas Utilities Generating Company) and who have direct responsibilities over Comanche Peak design or construction.
In addition, with respect to management with responsibilities concerning quality assurance for the Comanche Peak project, we include managers and persons reporting directly to such managers in the Texas Utilities and Brown & Root organizations at the Comanche Peak site.
With resoect to the request for all documents, Applicants have l
examiced the relevant files known to persons within the above-
~
defined class which are reasonably likely to contain the specific types of documents identified in the requests.
I Request:
All notes of conversations or summaries or descriptions c.
of conversations since January 1, 1979 between NRC officials recommending or suggesting any management changes, or any dissatisfaction with specific individuals performance or the 4
attitude of management in general.
Answer:
Applicants are not aware of any such documents within their possession, custody or control.
Request:
d.
A complete, up-to-date list, including an organizational chart for all contract and subcontract personnel now doing. work on design and/or construction of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant.
This should be comprehensive to first line
.. supervisors in both construction and quality assurance / quality control, whether or not the work will be relied upon to meet regulatory requirements.
Answer:
As framed, this request is overly broad in that it seeks information'regarding personnel of any contractor or subcontractor, irrespective of whether an individual whose identity is' requested, or the work being performed by the contractor or. subcontractor, is relevant to any issue in this proceeding.
Further, the request is not sufficiently specific to permit a reasoned response in that the term "first line supervisor" is not defined.
Nevertheless, donsistent with the' Memorandum and order (Procedural Rulings), Applicants will produce a list of personnel performing work at the Comanche Peak site itself.
This list will include contractor or subcontractor personnel regardless of the relationship of their work to issues in the proceeding or whether their work "will be relied on to meet regulatory. requirements."
The list includes personnel who have supervisory responsibility over at least one other person performing design or construction work at the site.
This list does not include personnel performing work at locations other than at.the Comanche Peak site.
To acquire such information would be unduly burdensome.3 3/
Obtaining such information would require contacting approximately 130 current contractors and subcontractors, obtaining personnel lists, determining which persons have performed any work on Comanche Peak, (Footnote 3 continued on next page) j
. With respect to the request for organizational charts, Applicants will produce such charts as are known to be in existence with respect to the personnel. identified in the list to be provided.
Organizational charts for the CPRT organization have already been provided in the CPRT Program Plan.
Request:
A complete, up-to-date list of the present job of any e.
person who was a witness for Brown & Root or Texas Utilities Company in NRC operating license hearings or Department of Labor wrongful termination proceedings if, at the time they testified, were deposed, or provided affidavits, they worked for any of the Applicants (i.e., owners or contractors) or with subcontractors or consultants at the plant.
Answer:
Applicants will provide for inspection and copying a list of the present job, if.known, of witnesses who testified for 4
Applicants in the NRC operating license hearings regarding issues arising under contention 5 if at the time they testified they were employed by Applicants or a contractor or subcontractor of Applicants (including consultants).
This list will include any person who testified or provided an evidentiary (Footnote 3 continued from previous page) and defining whether they fall within the appropriate supervisory category.
Applicants estimate that this effort would involve 400-650 man-hours (assuming 3-5 hrs per contractor / subcontractor) of Applicants' and contractor or subcontractor personnel time.
Applicants consider the information to be provided as described above to be a reasonable response to this inquiry.
-4/
The Board ruled that Applicants need not provide a list with respect to persons who testified exclusively in Department of Labor proceedings (Tr. 24,196).
. Ldeposition.
The list will also include persons providing affidavits in support of the motions for summary disposition concerning pipe support design allegations.
The list will not include persons who were called as witnesses by CASE, the NRC Staff or the Licensing Board.
Request:
f.
All documentation, including contracts between Texas Utilities and any other company, setting forth the agreements which govern or control the assignment parameters of all individuals identified in items a through f.
Answer:
. Discovery requests framed in terms of "all documents" are not appropriate (see Clinton, ALAB-340, supra).
In this sense the request is overbroad.
Applicants-will, however, provide contracts or agreements.
In those instances where there is no separate c'ontract or agreement for a specific individual, the
. contract or agreement between Texas Utilities and the contractor or subcontractor which defines the scope of work to be performed will be provided.
Copies of these documents will be produced with cost and fee schedules deleted.
Further, contracts with CPRT personnel and organizations are'being provided in response to CASE request A-11 of CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories and Requests to Produce.
Further production of those contracts will
-5/
See also,. CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce Re: Credibility (March 4, 1985),
Question 36.c., and Applicants' July 3, 1985, Response where Applicants agreed to, and did, produce contracts with CPRT organizations.
s..
. be in the context of Applicants' response to the 8/27/85 discovery requests.0 Request:
Eh.
In addition to Items a-g for any other Applicant
. witness who has given testimony, depositions, or affidavits, in the proceedings identified in section e above, identify any job or responsibility change and provide all documents relevant to the reason for and nature of the change.
Answer:
There are no' witnesses who testified for Applicants regarding issues arising under Contention ~ who are not identified in the response to item e.
Request:
1.
For each personnel change identified in any of the above responses provide the new job description, or memorandum of instructions, detailing the scope of responsibility and authority to each individual.
Also included in this item is any memorandum, notes, etc. generated by the incoming official setting forth his/her understanding of the job and any instructions, comments, overviews, etc. generated by the new manager to his/her subordinates.
Answer:
Applicants will provide the requested documents for inspection and copying.
-6/
.see Applicants' october 22, 1985, Responses to CASE's F/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce.
. d
- Request:
3.
Speeches to workforce regarding organization and management Provide copies or notes of all speeches given by Texas a.
Utilities or Brown management personnel to the Comanche Peak-l~
workforce (or any group thereof), since January 1, 1979, including quality assurance / quality control, regarding organizational or management changes at Comanche Peak, including but not. limited to Mr. Spence's March / April 1985 speeches to the QC inspectors about the problems and status of the plant.
Answer:
As framed this request is insufficiently specific to provide a reasoned response.
The request does not define the terms.
" speeches", " management personnel," "workforce.(or any group thereof)" or identify whose " copies or notes" are to be provided.
Nevertheless, consistent with the Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings),' Applicants will respond to this request by providing the requested documents with respect to the j
following:
formal oral presentations, to defined segments of employees at Comanche Peak gathered for the purpose of hearing such presentations (i.e., not routine, regular meetings), by key management personnel as defined in the response to questions 1.a. and b., regarding organization or management changes.
With respect to the requested " copies or notes," see response to Question 3.b.
Request:
b.
For each communication provide the written record of that communication, any transcripts or notices of speeches or meetings, and all written records of the results of those communications.
g; s
\\\\,
~
s
(\\
'10 -
t' A
1
.. A s..
\\
\\L s
Answer:
e Applicants will provide the requested documents to the 4.
(
extent they are known.,t9sor. contained in.the files of the management personnel-.who made the subject speeches or persons who assisted in the preparabidn and presentation of the A
s s
r speeches.
l '
,+
Request:,
~
I 4.
Documents provided to work (orce;7-b s
s All documents and/or other information provided to
. a.
employees at any time regarding plant safety (not worker safety), federal regulations, and procedures fpr reporting plant '
safety. violations or dificiencies [ sic).
[,+.
s
,: 1 s.
s g
Answer:
m This request is overly broad and'otherwise lacking'in' i
sufficient specification to permit a reasoned response.
As framed, the request would include every document ever provided l
to any worker regarding Comanche Peak'pafety-related activities, il including routine indoctrination and training mater a s, t
procedures'and instructions for thousands of design, s
y construction and quality assurance activities.
- Further, requests for "all documents" are not appropriate discovery s
requests (see Clinton, ALAB-340,' supra).
In.accordance with the Memorandum and order (Procedural
[
Rulings), Applicants have sought to interpret this request reasonably in order to provide a response.
Applicaats will
\\.
l respond to'this request to the extent it seeks documents, produced since January 1, 1979, which were provided to the t'
3 x
I 4
g t
y
-~c.,-
,y--w,
,,,,.y
.-,_,,.,-.,,_m-,_,
..m_., - -
m.-%y,,_
y rw,,.
v.,,n. -.,,...,,.
,,y
..,y,w
I
- workforce as a whole regarding their general obligations and rights with respect to, and methods for, identification and reporting of safety deficiencies.
Request:.
6.
SAFETEAM documents All documents which relate to the basis for the removal a.
or elimination of the ombudsman position, and any documents which recommend, justify, announce and or explain the replacement of the ombudsman program with the-SAFETEAM.
Answer:
Requests seeking "all documents" are not appropriate discovery requests (see Clinton,'ALAB-340 supra).
Nevertheless, consistent with the Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings),
Applicants have reviewed relevant files known to the principal persons involved in the institution of the SAFETEAM program at Comanche Peak, and/or directly responsible for its implementa-tion, which are likely to contain responsive documents.
Request:
b.
The contracts and agreements about the scope of work between the SAFETEAM and Texas Utilities Company and/or Brown and Root, Inc.
Answer:
Applicants will provide the requested documents.
. Request:
c.
All written information regar6 Lng how the SAFETEAM implements its program, methodology, instructions, training materials, forms used in interviews, interview checklists, etc.
Answer:
As framed the request is overly broad in that;it seeks the equivalent of "all documents", viz., "all written information" (see Clinton, ALAB-340, supra).
Further, the use of the term "etc." is meaningless.
Consistent with the Memorandum and order
( Procedur&.1 Rulings) Applicants will provide for inspection and copying the procedures and instructions used in the training of, and conduct of interviews by, SAFETEAM members.
Applicants will also provide standard forms,used in those interviews.
Request:
8.
TRT evaluations a.
All documentation prepared by, or for, or under the control of the CPRT or CPSES that relates to review of the TRT findings, beginning with any such documents generated in response to the September, 1984 letter from the TRT to TUEC on electrical problems, and including the October, 1984, November 1984 and January 11, 1985 letters, and the subsequently issued SSER Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 this includes all documents prepared for or as a result of any meetings with any representatives of the TRT).
b.
All CPRT documents which address the validity, significance, and generic impact of all the TRT findings.
Answer:
Requests seeking "all documentation" are not an appropriate form of discovery (see Clinton, ALAB-340, supra).
Nevertheless, Applicants will produce CPRT generated and maintained material consistent with and in the manner described during the 1
cn,.
-e
. prehearing conference of November 12, 1985, for the production of CPRT materials.
(Tr. 24,152.)
Also, Applicants will produce project generated and maintained material consistent with the mechanism described in the introduction to these answers.
Request:
9.
CYGNA documents re:
QA/QC program All documents (including CPRT) wh'ich evaluate, report, assess, analyze or detail the CYGNA Corporation's Phase IV findings with regard to QA/QC issues (i.e., CYGNA's finding that the cause of the design review problem was with the reviewers, not the procedures, but couldn't explain why the reviewers, weren't doing their job), or CYGNA's inability to determine why the design document control system broke down.
Answer:
Applicants will provide the requested information when it is produced.
However, the CYGNA Phase IV Report has not yet been issued.
Thus, there are no documents at this time which
" evaluate, report,
." the Phase IV findings in that'such findings have not.been made.
Further, the request lacks sufficient specification to enable Applicants to determine which
" finding (s)" CASE refers to in the question.
Request:
10.
Contractor information All documentation, including contracts between Comanche a.
Peak Owners or other subcontractors (such as EBASCO) which defines the scope of the assignments of contract personnel who have been retained by the owner or any one of them to provide assistance of any sort in resolving QA/QC or hardware concerns identified by the NRC --
i.e., all contractors hired after March 19, 1984 up to and including the present.
. b.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of Daniels International at Comanche Peak.
The contract and all other documents related to the c.
scope of responsibility of Stone and Webster at Comanche Peak.
d.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of TERA Corporation at Comanche Peak.
The contract and all other documents related to the e.
scope of responsibility of Evaluation Research Corporation at Comanche Peak.
f.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of Monty Wise, Inc. at Comanche Peak.
h.
All documentation that explains the relationship between all of the subcontractors identified in response to any question above and Comanche Peak Owners.
Answer:
Applicants have already provided most of t'he requested documents in response to previous CASE requests.
Contracts with CPRT organizations are being provided in the context of Question A-ll of CASE's 8/27/85 interrogatories in Docket-1.
Copies of these documents will be provided with cost and fee schedules deleted.
With respect to item h., in addition to the above-identified contracts, Applicants have previously produced the CPRT Program Plan which identifies the activities to be
-7/
As noted, Applicants provided contracts between Texas Utilities and CPRT organizations in response to prior CASE discovery requests (see notes 5 and 6, supra).
.- - - - - -.=
15 -
performed in that Program and-the relationship of.the CPRT activities to project-activities.
This question is not sufficiently' clear to provide a more specific response.
Request:
14.
Liner Plate /QA/QC a.
Produce the results and all bases of the TUEC investigation / inspection into the liner plate documentation breakdown announced in December 1984 during the testimony of C.
Thomas Brandt.
b.
Produce all documents developed since 1 July 1984 regarding the liner plant QA/QC breakdown.
Answer:
Applicants will provide documents related to the investigation noted in Mr. Brandt's testimony.
(A review of a 4
sample of liner plate documentation was conducted separately x
1 e
y
-.,_-,r--
y
,-------e,
. from the CPRT review.)
Documents created in the CPRT review of the liner plate. issue will be provided in the manner described at the November 12, 1985, prehearing conference.
Respectfully submitted,.
em Nicho;'tfB 'S.
REyncu.Ws William A.
Horin BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9837 Robert A. Wooldridge WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS
& WOOLDRIDGE 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 872-5000 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R.K. Gad III ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 December 12, 1985
4 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
) Docket Nos. 50-445-2, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric.
)
Operating Licenses)
~ Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answers to CASE's September 4, 1985, Request for Document Production" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by express mail (*) or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.on the 12th day of December, 1985, or by hand delivery (**) on the 13th day of December, 1985.
- Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety Chairman,' Atomic Safety and and Licensing Appeal Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan William L. Clements 522 North Ocean Blvd.
Docketing and Service Pompano Beach, FL 33062 Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission Dean, Division of Washington, D.C.
20555 Engineering, Architecture Stuart A. Treby, Esquire c
and Technology Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 L
i e-e--sym-%
p w-a m-,:--
g-g g,
-.e, e
e,
.,%-s._..7--,,7,.--a.
9 r-,y-
,,,9-
-*--1
.-99.
my.ry-p-e
r
---my
. Chairman, Atomic Safety Mr. James E. Cummins and Licensing Board Resident Inspector / Comanche Panel Peak Steam Electric Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
'c/o U.S. NRC Commission P.O. Box 38 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Renea Hicks, Esquire
- Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Trial Lawyers for Public Environmental Protection Justice Division 2000 P Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 12548 Suite 611 Capitol Station Washington, D.C.
20036 Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis Lanny A. Sinkin President, CASE Christic Institute 1426 South Polk Street 1324 North Capital St.
Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20002 4
- Ms.
Billie P. Garde Joseph Gallo, Esquire Citizens Clinic Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Government Accountability Suite 840 Project 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Suite 202 Washington, D.C.
20036
- Herbert Grossman, Esquire
- Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Alternative Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mk C. d William A.
Horin cc:- John W. Beck Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
,-