ML20138H266
| ML20138H266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Dignan T, Tyler T NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM), ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#485-943 OL, NUDOCS 8510280518 | |
| Download: ML20138H266 (72) | |
Text
Filed: October 22, 1985 BEOTED CORRESPONC
/
{'illh h .! .
i- .
/\
r -- N g i: \
w r., \
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA T ()yI Oh 0 '
]S*~gio NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y th(wk$, y before the )Qj p; 3\h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445 j TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) 50-446 O L COMPANY et al. )
) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO
" CASE'S 8/27/85 INTERROGATORIES'TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" AND REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE OPDER ,
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741, the Applicants respond herein to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce."
These interrogatories and requests for production were served by mail on August 27, 1985, and the time within which responses were due was enlarged by informal agreement with CASE.
l
\
fpk O
[
r J General Responses
- 1. The Applicants have disregarded the instructions contained in paragraphs numbered 1-2 and 4-7 under the heading " Instructions," which are inconsistent with the Rules of Practice. In each case, the information provided in response to interrogatories is based either upon the personal knowledge of the person signing these interrogatories or upon information that is not within his personal knowledge but is known to Texas Untilities Generating Company, for itself and as agent for the co-owners of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
Supplementation will be provided under the circumstances described in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(e).
- 2. With respect to requests for the production of documents, to the extent set forth herein in response to specific requests, the documents in question will be made available to CASE for inspection and copying at a time mutually convenient to CASE and the undersigned counsel for the Applicants at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas.
I
, e > _\
J
- 3. With respect to documents contained, or that will when the Issue Specific Action Plans l ("ISAP's") and Discipline Specific Action Plans
("DSAP's") are completed be contained, in the files of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT"), your attention is directed to section III(j) of the CPRT Program Plan (6/28/85) for a description of the files maintained by the CPRT. The CPRT Central Files will be made available upon request at a time mutually convenient to CASE and the undersigned counsel for the Applicants at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas. The CPRT Working Files with respect to individual ISAP's 1
and DSAP's will be similarly made available for inspection and copying at such time as the files have been sent by the Review Team Leader ("RTL") for the ISAP or DSAP in question to the SRT for inclusion in l
the CPRT Central Files. The CPRT Working Files are maintained by each RTL during the performance of the ISAP or DSAP in question and are necessary to the I
implementation of the-ISAP or DSAP. There does not exist any means by which these files can be produced for inspection and copying prior to completion of the i
I I
l i
1
---w, -,,,--.-..o,, ~~ w , ,
~,,- , , , - --,,w,--- -
n- - - -
, 3 ISAP or DSAP without interruption and delay of the work being done on the ISAP's and DSAP's. To whatever extent these interrogatories and requests for production might be construed to require something different, the Applicants object to them and request a protective order.
Specific Responses A. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding 6/13/85 AM Meeting Interrogatory / Request No. A-1 Question / Request:
A-1. Please provide a complete copy of each and every implementation plan which were or are still to be made available to the NRC staff on site. (Tr.
12/21-22.)
Objection:
The ISAP and DSAP implementation plans are documents that are contained, or in the case of those not yet prepared, will be contained in the CPRT Central File and the CPRT Working Files for the particular ISAP's and DSAP's, which files will be produced in the I
manner and at the time described above. (Paragraph 3 of " General Responses" above.) To the extent that this Request calls for the production of documents presently l
1 . . . _
y G
in existence and contained in the CPRT Working Files, those files will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
To the extent that the Request calls for documents not presently in existence, the Applicants object to it on the ground that such a request is not proper discovery under the Rules of Practice. The Applicants move for a protective order on these objections.
Interrogatories / Requests Nos. A A-4 Question / Request:
A-2. Please provide all available information on each and every person who has now been hired or who is yet to be hired to " fill in the blanks on (Mr.
Counsil's organizational) chart (s)."
Please provide a complete resume for each individual so named, and give all information (e.g., name, title, responsibilities, etc.) on the position he or she is/will do with TUGCO.
i A-3. Please provide the names, titles, position, l responsibilities and complete resume on each
- individual who is in the second and third tiers under the management tiers given on Mr. Counsil's charts. Please note which, if any of these individuals is not a full-time TUGCO employee and l which are. For each person who is not a full-
, time TUGCO employee, please provide full I
information on his or her employer, contractor, l etc. and if that company, contractor, etc. has been hired as a consultant for the Comanche Peak project.
l 1
t l
. , \
l i
l A-4. Please provide current updates in changes in positions and/or titles for each of the persons on each of Mr. Counsil's organizational charts.
In particular, give complete information on each and every new individual who has been hired and/or transferred from another position to those positions, each and every person (e.g. Beck --
. Tr . 18/18-20 -- who was " filling in at manager of nuclear full (sic) and safety analysis" and George -- Tr. 18/15-17 -- who was " filling (in) as manager of engineering") now in those (and every other) spot.
Objection (Partial):
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that requests framed in terms of "all available information," "all information", " complete information" and " complete resume" are overly broad,
, excessively burdensome, overly vague and insufficiently specific to permit an intelligent response. See-10 C.F.R. 5 2.741(c); Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 34 (1976). The Applicants further object to this interrogatory on the ground that the information sought I
is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding. The Applicants move for a protective order on these objections. Without i
l l l
'\ .
waiving these objections, the Applicants provide the information set forth below:
Answer:
The only addition since that time is Mr. Ed Powell who is Executive Assistant to Mr. Beck. Mr.
Powell's resume is attached to these answers.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-5 Question / Request:
A-5. Please provide a complete set of all allegations filed with the SAFE Team since its inception along with a complete copy of each and every response by the Company. (NOTE: All documents may have informant's names stricken.) (Tr. 25/5-7.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory and request for production on the grounds that, as framed, it calls for information that is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding. Applicants further object to providing information or documents arising out of the SAFETEAM program, even if a request were framed in relevant terms, on the ground that to permit discovery of the SAFETEAM program would undermine the purpose of the protram and undercut its effectiveness, and thus impair the accomplishment of an inportant regulatory objective. See " Applicants' Memora'ndum Regarding Supplemental Document Production" filed May 29, 1985.
The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-6 Question / Request:
A-6. Please provide a complete copy of an updated resume for each and every member of the CPRT team mentioned any time or anywhere on the organizational charts, or by members of the CPRT team speakers as being superiors, subordinates, or co-workers on the CPRT effort. This includes both TUGCO personnel and all consu;. tant personnel whether loaned to TUGCO or working under contract to TUGCO.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this request for 1
production of documents on the ground that, inasmuch as there is no pending litigation regarding the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan before the Board, the CPRT efforts and personnel are not relevant to contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding, until such time as any of the CPRT efforts are offered into evidence and CPRT personnel are offered as witnesses.
The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection. The Applicants are willing to treat this
o ,
interrogatory as an outstanding interrogatory calling for information r'egarding expert witnesses, see Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490 (1983), and will provide the information called for thereby at such time as they have determined which experts they intend to call to the stand.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-7 Question / Request:
A-7. Please provide a complete copy of each and every document summarizing, listing, outlining, compiling, etc. the back fit activities under Mr.
John Marshall's work on the CPRT effort. (Tr.
33/3-9.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory on the ground that a request in terms of "each and every document summarizing, listing, outlining, compiling, etc." is overly broad and insufficiently specific, and
- on the further ground that, as is clear from the l
transcript material in question, the reference does not refer to the CPRT and the information called for is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention t
i i
t
,/
o .
in these proceedings. The Applicants move for a protective order on these objections.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-8 Question / Request:
A-8. Please provide a current listing of each and every pre-operational test, re-test, etc. which remains to be done or which has been done following the June 13th meeting for Unit 1. In addition, please provide-the current status for any waivers or deferrals of any of these tests which the Company has or will request from the NRC for permission to do them after fuel load.
(Tr. 40/8-12.) In addition, please list the currently anticipated test date for each one.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory on the ground that the information called for is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in these proceedings. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-9 Question / Request:
A-9. Please provide a complete copy of all documentation received after the June 13th meeting regarding updates on the diesel generator issues (both from the Owners Group and from the NRC.) (Tr. 42/4-16.)
./
o ..
objection:
- The Applicants object to this interrogatory on the ground that the information called for is not' I relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in these proceedings. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
.i
- Interrogatory / Request No. A-10 i
Question / Request:
- 10. Please provide a complete transcript of each and every meeting held after June 13, 1985 (if not already provided) between Applicant and Cygna concerning Cygna's concerns, the CPRT, etc. (Tr.
! 66/19-21.)
Response
The Applicants are unaware of any transcripts of any such meeting.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-11 i
Question / Request:
! A-11. Please provide a complete copy of each and every document documenting the contract (s) between
, TUGCO and each and every consultant, firm, and/or
- i company working on the CPRT effort. Include with i this documentation any letters of authorization l (or similar documents by any other name) telling exactly what their scope of work is, who they are responsible to, etc.; copies of the minutes of-each and every meeting between each one and the CPRT personnel, copies of telecoms, etc. (Cf.
- Tr. 76/10-17.)
i i
j/
NOTE: If any of these consultants have contracted under Gibbs & Hill and/or Brown and Root, please provide all the documentation requested above on each of them.
We note that we have already received some of the contracts requested; however, we have not received any of the other information requested (such as letters of initial contact, telecoms, handwritten notes, letters of understanding, letters of intent, statement of protocol, statement of scope, or other such related or similar documents or information).
Also, we are not certain that we have received all of the purchase orders / contracts.
Objection (Partial):
The Applicants object to this request for the production of documents on the ground that the terms "all documents documenting" and " copies of telcoms, etc." are overly broad and insufficiently specific to constitute proper discovery. The Applicants further object to this request insofar as is calls for the production of the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's prior to the time that the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed and the working files are no longer needed for the execution of the work. The
- Applicants move for a protective order on these
, objections. Nothwithstanding and without weiving these
/
objections, the Applicants will produce the contract documents with third-party organizations performing CPRT work in accordance with paragraph 2 of " General Responses" above, except that information regarding rates, charges and compensation will be redacted from the documents produced.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-12 Question / Request:
A-12. Please provide a complete copy of each and every bi-weekly (or whatever interval is used) briefing notes, papers, and or other informal or formal documentation of the briefings made to Mr.
Counsil on the progress of the Stone &
Webster / Bob Cloud & Associates piping and pipe support effort in conjunction with the CPRT.
(Tr. 77/1-17.)
Objection:
The Applicants have three documents meeting the description contained in this request, which will be produced in accordance with Paragraph 2 of " General Responses" above.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-13 Question / Request:
A-13. Please provide a complete copy (cf all revisions) of the CPRT charter (or similar documentation, if not by that name) delineating the group's purpose, powers, etc. (Tr. 86/14ff.)
Response
A
The documents requested will be produced in accordance with paragraph 3 of " General Responses" above.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-14 Question / Request:
A-14. Please provide a complete copy of each and every document of CPRT activities and records kept in the CPRT project files from the inception of the effort to date. (Tr. 88/21-23.)
Objection and Response:
Insofar as this request calls for the production of the CPRT Central Files, the documents requested will be produced in accordance with paragraph 3 of " General Responses" above. Insofar as this request calls for the production of the CPRT Working Files, the documents will be produced in accordance with paragraph 3 of
" General Responses" above at such time as the specific ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed and the files have been transferred to the Central File. Insofar as this request calls for the production of the CPRT Working' Files prior to the time that the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed and while the files are still required in order to permit the work to proceed, l
the Applicants incorporate their objection stated in
_ A
paragraph 3 of " General Responses" above and request a protective order.
Interrogtory No. A-15 Question / Request:
A-15. Please provide complete copies of each and every document added to the CPRT project filed on a weekly updating basis beginning with the first document added to the file after the response was given to Request 14 above.
Objection and Response:
The Applicants will produce the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's in accordance with paragraph 3 of " General Responses" above and as stated in the response to the preceding request, at which time they will contain all documents added to them during the course of the performance of the work on the ISAP or DSAP in question. Insofar as this interrogatory calls for the production of documents not presently in existence, the Applicants object to it on the ground that there is no such discovery device provided for in the Rules of Practice. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
A
l 1
l l
Interrogatory / Request No. A-16 Question / Request:
A-16. Please provide a complete copy (all revisions) of the CPRT guidelines for determining safety significance of items brought to the CPRT's attention. (Tr. 89/19-90/7.)
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-17 Question / Request:
A-17. Please provide a complete copy of each and every instance of noting and/or evaluation by the CPRT of issues related to compliance with licensing commitments. (Tr. 90/12-19.)
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or
will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-18 Question / Request:
A-18. Please provide the definition of " safety significant" or " safety significance" being used by the CPRT. (Tr. 91/9-14.) If it was the same during the meeting as what is shown in the CPRT i
Plan, please so state. Include in your answer any and all documents (in the broad sense of the word, as defined on page 2) related to discussions, meetings, etc., during which the derivation of the definition was discussed.
Objection (Partial):
The Applicants object to a request framed in terms of "any and all documents" and " discussions, meetings, etc." on the ground that such terms are overly broad and insufficiently specific. The Applicants move for a protective order on this i
objection. Without waiving this objection, the Applicants provide the following response.
l l
I l
l Response: i Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence j when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or
! the ClRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's
- or both, which will be produced in the manner and at
- the time set forth in the Objection and Response to l
! Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated l by reference herein.
I j Interrogatory / Request No. A-19
- Question / Request:
A-19. Please provide complete documentation done by the CPRT that clearly identifies any areas where the Company is not in compliance with FSAR commitments or with other commitments which they have made. (Tr. 92/4-10.)
! Please also provide a completo copy (all i revisions) of each and every NCR (and/or similar
! document used to document such a deviation, etc.)
written to document the finding of such non-compliance with an FSAR or other commitment.
(Tr. 92/11-19.)
I l Objection (Partial):
Except to the extent related to commitments that refer to the QA/QC program, the documents called for by l
j this request are not relevant to Contention 5, the only i
l
I 4
i admitted contention in this proceeding, and the Applicants move for a protective order on this l objection. Without waiving this objection, the l Applicants provide the following response.
t Response:
With respect to CPRT documents, such documents, i to the extent presently in existence or to the extent i
I they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's
.I have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for 1
particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the j Ccjection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
1 With respect to NCR's, th'e Applicants will produce, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of " General l Responses" above, (i) a list of all NCR's written as a
- result of CPRT-generated deviation reports from July 1,
! 1985 to the present, and (ii) a log of all NCR's written from October 1, 1984 through July 1, 1985 (no i separate list of NCR's written as a result of CPRT-i generated deviation reports for the period prior to i'
July 1, 1985 being presently in existence). The i
1
f.
5 Applicants will produce for inspection, at the CPSES site and at a time mutually agreeable to CASE's a
representative and counsel for the Applicants, such NCR's as CASE may designate from the foregoing list and log.
Interrogatory / Request No. A-20 a
- Question / Request
i A-20. Please provide the current list of all design changes which will need to be submitted for staff review, and those which are pending staff review.
(Tr. 96/6-9.) In addition, please provide all
- documentation of each and every item listed in response to the above, including each and every staff response, meeting transcript, etc.
1 (Note: Please provide additional information i
updating each item on this. list, and on items added later to the list, as it becomes i available.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to this request on the ground that it is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding. The Applicants move for a protective order on these objections.
t i
- =
i . .
Interrogatory / Request No. A-21 '
Question / Request:
A-21. Please provide a complete copy of each and every CPRT " wrap-up report" (Tr. 117/4) and "results j report" (117/11) in the CPRT project file.
- Response
a Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence j when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or I will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or j the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's'and DSAP's i '
or both, which will be produced in the manner and at j the time set forth in the Objection and Response to i
- Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated l
i by reference herein.
, Interrogatory / Request No. A-22 Question / Request:
i l A-22. Please list for each CPRT action plan which group's QA/QC plan will be in effect. (or, ,
, alternatively, list only those which have a QA/QC i
- plan different from TUGCO's, and state in writing ,
that all others are under TUGCO QA/QC.) Please l provide the name of the group's QA/QC program for each action plan which is not TUGCO's. (Tr. 125-127.)
f l
l i i
4
Answer:
The information called for by this interrogatory will be contained in an amendment to the CPRT Program Plan to be issued shortly or in a separate transmittal to the NRC Staff. In either event, a copy will be provided to CASE at the time the document is published.
I 4
B. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding 6/13/85 PM Meeting Interrogatory / Request No. B-1 Question / Request:
B-1. Please provide all information relating to the CPRT's consideration of the implications of SSER 11, including Appendix P. (Tr. 145/19-146-24.)
In addition, please provide a complete copy of all documents filed with the NRC regarding such CPRT work.
Answer:
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the timo set forth in the objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. B-2 Question / Request:
B-2. Please provide complete documentation of all instances o >nfirmation of allegations of harassment e.~ intimidation by TUGCO. (Tr.
150/7-11.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to this request on the ground that harassment and intimidation is the subject of the so-called " Docket-2" proceeding and not the proceeding under which these requests have been j submitted. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. B-3 i Question / Request: i B-3. Please provide a complete copy of the complete detailed list of sources and inputs to each issue, along with a cross-reference for each i outstanding issue in the comprehenrive a-t on list (CAL) per TRT member Calvo's request. (Tr.
165/7-25.)
Objection:
- To the extent that this request relates to the
. Comprehensive Action List (" CAL"), the Applicants object to it on the ground that the CAL i's not relevant i to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in these proceedings. The Applicants move for a protective i
order on this objection.
Answer:
To the extent that this request calls for documents relating to the assessment, such documents, l
i I
i
. . . _ - -. . ~ .. - - .- -
to the extent presently in existence or to the extent J
they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be
! produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. B-4
} Question / Request:
l I B-4. Please provide a copy of all documentation i provided to TRT member Livermore in response to j his request for an identification of all QA/QC
- issues raised in each SSER and a correlation to
! where the CPRT's response can be found in each specific action plan, along with some kind of conclusion for each. (Tr. 178/12-179-17.)
, Response:
I
- No such documents have been provided to Mr.
I i Livermore, i
Interrogatory / Request No. B-5 Question / Request:
! B-5. Please provide a complete copy of each and every
} NCR sent to the project management regarding the CPRT's recommendations for corrective action on
- specific items of the plan. (Tr. 184/7-9.)
i
- l
\
i
Response
See Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-19.
Interrogatory / Request No. B-6 Question / Request:
B-6. Please provide a complete copy of each and every notification (of whatever name or form) sent to the senior review team by the CPRT notifying them of recommendations for programmatic changes and/or problems on specific items of the plan.
(Tr. 184/11-12.)
1 Response:
Such documents, to the extent presently in j existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or i
will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or ,
the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's
- or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the objection and Response to
- Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
1 Interrogatory / Request No. B-7 l Question / Request:
B-7. Provide a copy of the summary of harassment and
- intimidation information provided to Mr. Hansel through the attorneys. Also provide any and all documentation of Mr. Hansel's statement that he had researched that list himself to satisfy
- himself that each of those items were in fact l
l j !
s 1
covered in one of the CPRT current issues
- specific plans. (Tr. 161/11-17.)
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
C. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding 6/14/85 AM Meeting Interrogatory / Request No. C-1 C-1. Please provide the " road map" showing where each Cygna identified issue is treated within the CPRT program plan and within each specific action.
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in i
existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at 1
l l
l
-. .. . ._- - .. . ~. . - _ - . _ ..- - - . - _ . . _ _ .
4 .
i i
the time set forth in the Objection and Response to l Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated i i
by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. C-2 4
Question / Request:
C-2. Please provide complete documentation on each and j every walkdown done by CPRT personnel from any j issue area. (Tr. 29/12-21.) Include with such I
,1 documentation all procedures, checklists, etc.
- used for each walkdown.
i Response:
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence i
, when the ISAP's .and DSAP's have been completed, are or
)1 will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or
! the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's l
! or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated l by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. C-3 i Question / Request:
C-3. Please provide a complete copy of each and every
- attribute list developed for the CPRT personnel
- to use in determining which items are deviations, which are deficiencies, etc. per CPRT member i
- 1 J
Levin's promise to TRT members Calvo and Bosnak (Tr. 51/13-16, 20 and 53/3-5).
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. C-4 Question / Request:
C-4. Please provide a complete copy of each and every evaluation done by CPRT and/or TUGCO personnel regarding industry and NRC design verification-type programs such as IDVP's and IDI's in order to arrive at the CPRT's profile of the scope for its design adequacy program. (Tr. 80/13-22.)
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's
or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. C-5 Question / Request:
C-5. Please provide a complete copy of each and every comparison, etc. done by the CPRT regarding the scope of each and every previous evaluation done on the CPSES project. (Tr. 80/23-81/3.)
Response
l Such documents, to the extent presently in 1
existence or to the extent they will be in existence 1
when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. C-6 Question / Request:
C-6. Please provide a complete copy of each and every IDVP and IDI reviewed by the CPRT when performing the evaluations noted in Question No. C-3 above.
(Cf. also: Tr. 82/25-83/9 which list the
+
following: Callaway, Seabrook, Byron, Harris IDI's and the Midland and Diablo Canyon IDVP's.)
Response
The Applicants do not have "a complete copy of each and every IDVP and IDI reviewed . . . ." The documents reviewed by the Design Adequacy Review Team will be contained in the CPRT Working Files for the Design Adequacy DSAP's, the production of which is provided for in response to Interrogatory / Request No.
l A-14.
I D. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding 6/14/85 PM Meeting Interrogatory / Request No. D-1 Question / Request:
D-1. Please provide a complete copy of each and every set of procedures that Stone and Webster normally
- would use in the design and analysis of piping and pipe supports and a complete copy of the entire set of procedures which have been modified for use in Stone and Webster's portion of the CPRT effort. (Tr. 188/16-189/7.)
Response
The Applicants do not have the documents called for by the first phrase of this request. The documents called for by the second phrase of this request will be contained in the CPRT Working File or the Stone &
Webster project files relating to the Stone & Webster
. . _ _ _ . - - __ - _ . . , . . _ _ - - . . ._...e., _.
t work, which will be produced in the manner and at the i time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. D-2 i
! Question / Request:
D-2. Please provide complete documentation of all of Stone & Webster's analysis / reanalysis of its portion of the CPRT effort.
Response
The documents called for by this response will be contained in the CPRT Working Files relating to the DSAP relating to the Stone & Webster work, or in the Stone & Webster project files relating to the Stone &
Webster work, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to i
Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. D-3 Question / Request:
D-3. Please provide a complete copy of Stone &
Webster's program plan for its portion of the CPRT effort (all revisions). (Tr. 205/3-5.)
i
, , _ _ . _ . - - ,_.,.# v. , , . ..,. , _ , _. m. _ . , , .
1 1
3
Response
The portion of the CPRT program plan relating to the efforts being conducted by Stone & Webster is contained in the CPRT Program Plan, the production of which is provided for in response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-13.
Interrogatories / Requests Nos. D-4 and D-5 4
Question / Request:
D-4. Please provide a complete copy (all revisions) of the operator retraining, requalification program referred to by Mr. Counsil. (Tr. 233/14-17.)
D-5. Please provide a complete copy of all documentation related to the operator retraining, requalification program (see Question No. D-4 above).
Objection:
The Applicants object to these requests, on the ground that the documents called for are not relevant
- to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
4 Interrogatory / Request No. D-6 Question / Request:
D-6. Please supply answers to the questions asked by CASE President Juanita Ellis at the end of the 6/14/85 meeting (this is the same information requested informally during the 6/14/85 meeting l
l
, and again in CASE's 6/24/85 letter to Applicants' counsel Mr. Wooldridge, at page 2, item 3). (Tr.
234-261 generally; if this is not adequate information for you to be able to identify the specific questions, please advise and we will be i even more specific, and perhaps expand on them some.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to an " interrogatory" framed in terms of "all questions asked" by someone during a meeting. Under the Rules of Practice, ;
interrogatories must be propounded in writing, must relate to the admitted contentions, and must be framed with sufficient specificity as to permit an intelligent answer. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
E. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding 7/2/85 Meeting Interrogatory / Request No. E-1 Question / Request:
E-1. Please provide a complete copy of the detailed
- study provided to the Region IV staff members at the July 2, 1985 meeting between Region IV staff members and TUGCO personnel regarding TUGCO's decision to visually inspect painted non-pressure boundary welds.
J
-s
4 i
I
Response
) The requested document will be provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of " General Responses"
- above.
l Interrogatory / Request No. E-2 Question / Request:
E-2. Please provide a complete copy of all records of that meeting, including but not limited to:
meeting transcript (s); tape recording (s) of the i meeting; notes taken by participants at the meeting; handouts given out before, during, or after the meeting; memoranda or other written
, communications announcing, or planning the j meeting; memoranda or other written i communications summarizing, or following up on the meeting; etc. (Please answer based on information available from all meeting attendeos, Company files, etc.)
Response
I The Applicants are unaware of the existence of any transcripts, minutes or tape recordings of the meeting. In addition to the " Position Paper" to be -
provided in response to the previous request, any handouts or memoranda that may exist will be produced in accordance with paragraph 2 of General Responses, above.
1 i
l-l
i f
}
i Interrogatory / Request No. E-3 i
i Question / Request:
E-3. Please provide a complete list of.all TUGCO and other personnel of Applicant at the meeting.
- Please include job title and the name of the TU-
- related organization with whom they work. (NOTE:
If any of the attendees were employed by 4 consultants to Applicant, or by Applicant's ,
attorneys, please also state each of these individuals name and position and employer's name.)
Answer:
- Such a list is among the documents to be provided 4
in response to the previous request.
Interrogatories / Requests Nos. E-4 and E-5 Question / Request:
- E-4. Please provide a complete list of all Regicn IV j staff members who attended the meeting, along with their job title.
E-5. Please provide a complete list of all NRC personnel who attended the meeting who were not 1 members of Region IV staff. (NOTE: If any of the attendees were employed by consultants for any branch of the NRC,- cur are associated with any of the NRC's legal _ divisions, please so state each of these individuals name, position, and
( branch name, as well.)
I
!. Answer:
The Applicants are unable to supply the " complete lists" requested.
l 1
36-
,-, ~ e- n r- g-- .- -, , . - - + r., , , - , , . , . , . , .n-,,,,a,w, y -, v.,e.- e,_, - . ~ ,ns n., e =,w -.,,,e-w,m,.,.. me
I i i Interrogatory / Request No. E-6 Question / Request:
E-6. Please answer the following questions regarding the setting up of the meeting, giving the names and job titles and employer's name for each individual cited:
- a. Who (both from TUGCO, any other of Applicant's subsidiaries, consultants, or attorneys, or from the Region IV office of the NRC, or any other of the NRC's regions or branches, consultants, or attorneys) planned the July 2, 1985 meeting regarding visual inspection of painted non-pressure boundary welds?
- b. When was the date set for the July 2, 1985 meeting and by whom?
- c. Was Mr. Vincent Noonan, Director of the
! Comanche Peak Project for the Office of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, informed that such a meeting i was to be held on July 2, 1985 and the topic to be discussed?
, (1) If so, please provide a copy of all material documenting that notification.
(2) If not, please fully explain why Mr. Noonan was not so notified.
- d. Was any member of Mr. Noonan's staff, other than Mr. Noonan himself, informed that such a meeting was to be held on July 2, 1985 on the topic that was discussed?
- e. Was Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President j of CASE, informed that such a 1
I i
i _,__._ _ _ ._ . . - - - _ . . . - . . . __ _ - . . _ _ - . - . - . . . . .
\
meeting was to be held on July 2, 1985 on the topic that was discussed?
(1) If so, please provide a copy of all material documenting that notification.
(2) If not, please fully explain why Mrs. Ellis was not so notified.
- f. If either CASE and/or Mr. Noonan's staff were not informed in advance of the July 2, 1985 meeting regarding the visual inspection of painted non-pressure boundary welds, please state who (name, title, organization) made that decision and when Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the information called for is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in this proceeding. The Applicants move for a protective order on this_ objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-7 Question / Request:
E-7. Please fully document the basis for the assertion on page 1 that visual reinspection of painted welds is "not without precedent in the industry."
Please provide complete copies including, but not limited to of: each and every review, evaluation, study, procedure, etc. used by each such utility and approved by the NRC.
l l
l
i Answer:
Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. 1 and 2, and appendices 12 and 14 thereof. Furthermore, from " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Plants" ("VWAC"), NCIG-01, Rev. 2, 1 2.5
(" Acceptance Criteria"): "These criteria may also be used for subsequent inspection after the welds have been coated, with the concurrence of the Engineer."
Interrogatory / Request No. E-8 Question / Request:
E-8. Please fully document the basis for Applicant's decision to limit the weld attributes " considered critical to strength" to those listed on page 1 of Mr. Counsil's letter.
Answer:
The " Position Paper" referred to above lists, on page 2 of " Introduction," the attributes deemed to be secondary to strength consideration. The following reference apply to these secondary attributes:
i e
~, y . .y. - . . . .---.-_----_.._m----,,_.,.,,__m.. ..m.. . - - , _ . ,_ --- .__,e _
Craters, Weld Profile, Slag and Spatter
= Fundamentals of Weld Discontinuities and Their Significance. C. D. Lundin, WRC Bulletin 222, December, 1976.
= VWAC, NCIG-01, Rev. 2.
Porosity
= Fundamentals of Weld Discontinuities and Their Significance. C. D. Lundin, WRC Bulletin 222, I
December, 1976.
= Significance of Blunt Flaws in Pipeline Girth Welds. M. B. Kasen, Welding Journal, May, 1983.
= The Effects of Porosity on Mild Steel Welds. W.
L. Green, M. F. Hamad and R. B. McCauley, Welding Journal, May, 1958.
= Inherent Through-Wall Depth Limitations on Blunt Discontinuities in Welds. M. B. Kasen, G. E.
Hicks, R. C. Placious, Welding Journal, June, 1984.
Arc Strikes
= Fundamenta} s of Weld Discontinuities and Their Significance. C. D. Lundin, WRC Bulletin 222, December, 1976.
1
= fThe Effect of Arc Strikes on Steels Used in Nuclear Construction. S. H. Van Malssen, Welding Journal, July 1984.
= Significance of Blunt Flaws in Pipeline Girth Welds. M. B. Kasen, Welding Journal, May, 1983.
= Inherent Through-Wall Depth Limitations on Blunt Discontinuities in Welds. M. B. Kasen, G. E.
Hicks, R. C. Placious, Welding Journal, June, 1984.
1 See also VWAC, NCIG-01, Rev. 2.
Furthermore, the AWS D1.1 - Structural Welding Code - Steel, separates " workmanship" standards from
" quality of welds" standards. The commentary section of AWS Dl.1 - 1985 for paragraph 1.1.1.1 states that "The workmanship criteria provided in section 3 cf the
- Code are based on knowledgeable judgment of what is achievable by a qualified welder. The criteria of section 3 should not be considered as a boundary of suitability for service." The previously listed 1
attributes are considered workmanship attributes (i.e.
l secondary to strength consideration) in section 3 of AWS D1.1 l
I
_ ,.--. y - _ _ ,
.~ w ,~. . , - - - - - - , - ,c--- - - - - -
- ~ - - - -e* = *-r'
Interrogatory / Request No. E-9 Question / Request:
E-9. Please fully document the basis for Applicant's assertion that all of attributes listed on page 1 of Mr. Counsil's letter "are detectable and measurable through a paint coating of the type and thickness found at Comanche Peak."
Answer:
Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and appendices 12 and 14 thereof.
2 Interrogatory / Request No. E-10 Question / Request:
E-10. Please fully document the basis for the assertion made on page 1 of Mr. Counsil's letter that the type and thickness of the paint coating at Comanche Peak is "a primer and epoxy topcoat averaging approximately 10 mils."
Answer:
i Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support helds" to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and appendices 1, 2 and 3 thereof, f
I l
l l i
. _ , , . . _ _-_ .-, - - -.4,
I Interrogatory / Request No. E-11 Question / Request:
E-11. Please fully document the assertions made on l pages 1 and 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that i
"several independent NRC inspections of support welds, including the recent TRT, reported no evidence of cracking" and "several independent and separate reviews (including the NRC . . .
indicate no evidence of weld cracking."
Answer:
Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and appendices 5, 6 and 10 thereof.
- l Interrogatory / Request No. E-12 i
! Question / Request:
E-12. Please provide all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for the statement on page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that: "From a metallurgical standpoint, there is no reason to suspect weld cracking problems. The materials used are readily weldable, compatible with the electrodes, and historically produce welds which are not prone to cracking."
Answer:
! Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response to Interrogaotry/ Request Nos. E-1 and E-2 and appendix 10 thereof. The appendix shows the evaluation of 500 i
_ _ . __ _ . . ._. . . . . _ _ . _ , , _ _. . . _ _ . . - . _ . . . ~ _ _ _ .
randomly selected NCR's and indicates that there were no incidents of cracking related to support welds.
The Applicable carbon steel materials are ,
- prequalified by AWS D1.1 - Structural Welding Code -
Steel. The commentary (paragraph 5.1.1) states: "The Code permits the use of all welding processes applicable to steel construction. Through ,
I [these materials] have had a long experience . . .
record of satisfactory performance. They are designated as prequalified and are exempt from tests or qualification . . . ." These approved processes are allowed this status only if they are used with l
prequalified material. The materials used at Comanche Peak are included in the list of AWS approved j materials.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-13 Question / Request:
E-13. Please provide all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for the statement on page 2 of Mr. Counsil's-letter that: " Undercut is
- readily detectable through paint. In fact, 2
evidence has shown that paint tends to emphasize undercut if it exists."
l I
i l
Answer:
This is based on the experience of Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation QC personnel in inspections of welds before and after paint removal.
l This experience has shown that when paint was removed, undercut was either not present at all or was present to a less significant degree than originally observed.
1 This is due to a shadow effect of the paint / epoxy.
Especially with an enamel (glossy) type of paint, undercut appears to be larger than is the actual case.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-14 i
j Question / Request:
E-14. Please provide all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for the statement on page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that: "Regardless, i both undercut and overlaps are only significant where fatigue loading is a factor."
Answer:
Fundamentals of Weld Discontinuities and Their Signficance. C. D. Lundin, WRC Bulletin 222, December.
l 1976.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-15 Question / Request:
E-15. Please provide all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for the statement on page 1
l
2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that: " Fatigue loading is not a factor for these welds."
Answer:
[To be supplied.]
Interrogatory / Request No. E-16 Question / Request:
E-16. Please provide complete copies of all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for the statement on page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that: "similar inspections were allowed by the NRC at Wolf Creek Generating Station."
g Answer:
s l Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response I
to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and'E-2, and appendices 12 and 14 thereof.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-17 Question / Request:
E-17. Please provide complete copies of the allegedly
! "similar inspections," procedures, etc. which were allowed by the NRC at Wolf Creek (see i
Question No. 16.)
Answer:
j See response to Interrogatory / Request No. E-16.
I r
i 1
I
~ - . - - - . - . . ..-- -- - . . . . ... . ..- - . _ - -
l 1
i, t
- Interrogatory / Request No. E-18 l
- Question / Request:
i
- E-18. Please provide con.plete copies of the allegedly
- "similar analyses by independent consultants" l (see page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter) upon which
! " visual inspections of-painted fillet welds were
- conducted on safety-related structural steel" at Wolf Creek.
]
! Answer:
Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspectin of Support Welds" to be provided in response i to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and appendix 12 thereof.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-19 l
Question / Request:
- E-19. Please provide a complete copy of the " evaluation of the welding history at Comanche Peak" (page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter) which led Applicant to the conclusion that only one inspection attribute
- inspection reports.
Answer:
Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response j to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and I
l appendices 5, 6 and 10 thereof.
i .
} !
f l l
. ~ + . co,, .,n,.-n- - n w -r-n p --<m,w-+m , ,--- p- - ,, -em--. ,-..e,n.,,m,- .,ymw,- ,,,w,er._.,,,,,-e.__,n _,gn,-ww , >,n ,w w v-r +nm
i i '
. 1 Interrogatory / Request No. E-20 Question / Request:
) E-20. Please provide all documentation relied on by l Applicant as the basis for the statement on page '
2 of Mr. Counsil's letter that: "In summary, '
- there does not appear to be evidence of a j significant or generic problem associated with
- the non-pressure boundary welds or the welding program at Comanche Peak."
f Answer:
i Please refer to the " Position Paper on Visual Inspection of Support Welds" to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2, and 1
, appendices 5, 6, 7 and 10 thereof.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-21 Question / Request:
E-21. Referring back to Question No. 8 and your answer to it, please explain all differences (if any) between those attributes listed as " considered critical to strength" and those attributes which j may be termed "significant, strength-related"
- (page 2 of Mr. Counsil's letter).
i
! Answer:
j The words " critical" and "significant" in the context of the cited letter are used synonymously.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-22 1
Question / Request:
i I
, E-22. What criteria was used by Applicant to deem some j strength-related atrributes to be "significant" i
2 i
I
, , - . . , . ,,c..- , . . . _ . . _ , _ , , . . _
.r_._., ., . .y,,,%...,__,, ,...._ _,. ., _., ,.,, ,, _ m_ __,.s , . . . , , , - _ . , _ , _ . _ .,, . ~ .
.- _ . = __ - .
\ d i
l l
or " critical" and others not? Please provide complete copies of all documentation relied on by Applicant as the basis for making such a determination.
Answer:
Please refer to the response to Interrogatory / Request No. E-3, above.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-23 Question / Request:
j E -23 . Please identify each and every code section
- and/or NRC regulation which was relied on in j arriving at the conclusions in Applicants' letter, including the specific code (such as AWS, l ANSI, ASME, etc.), the date of each code section or Reg Guide, etc. If the document relied upon is not easily available, please provide a copy of it for inspection and copying.
Answer:
AWS Dl.1 - Structural Welding Code - Steel, 1979 through 1985.
Interrogatcry/ Request No. E-24 Question / Request:
E-24. Please provide complete copies of all review (s) and/or engineering evaluations performed by Gibbs
& Hill which forms the basis for the acceptance criteria and which " concluded that the criteria are applicable to the non-ASME structural welds at Comanche Peak." (Cf. page 3 of Mr. Counsil's letter.)
l l.
\
Response
(To be provided.]
Interrogatory / Request No. E-25 Question / Request:
E-25. If any consultant's analysis, report, etc. was used as the basis for any of Applicants'
( conclusions, please provide a copy of each and every such document. In addition, provide a copy of the contract, letter of intent, purchase order, etc., for each such consultant's work.
Answer:
The documents called for by the first sentence are included in the documents to be provided in response to Interrogatory / Request Nos. E-1 and E-2.
The document called for by the second sentence will be I provided in accordance with Paragraph 2 of " General Responses", above.
1 Interrogatory / Request No. E-26
! Question /Requese:
E-26. Please provide complete copies of each and every
- document which documents how, when, where, and which inspectors were trained to the new criteria i (Cf. p. 3).
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or l
l
\
i will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to l
Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein. _
Interrogatory /Requeat No. E-27 Question / Request:
E-27. Please provide complete copies of each and every inspection procedure using the new criteria (see 1
- Questions 23-25).
l .Tnswe r:
i Such documents, to the extent presently in j existence or to the extent they will be in existence i
j when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or
! the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's
! or both, which will be produced in the manner and at [
the time set forth in the Objection and Response to i
,. Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated
, by reference herein.
i i
I
- t l
I i
. . \ -
4 l
Interrogatory / Request No. E-28 Question / Request:
E-28. Please provide complete copies of all written documentation supporting the assertion on page 3
. of Mr. Counsil's letter that: " Naturally, should l an inspector feel that he is unable to provide an i adequate inspection on any particular weld i because of its coating, he will be encouraged to j have the paint removed to allay any doubts."
i (This documentation should include, but not be limited to, copies of memoranda to workers, letters, posters, etc.)
i
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular.ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at
! the time set forth in the Objection and Response to i
Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated l
by reference herein.
1
, Interrogatory / Request No. E-29 f
l Question / Request:
E-29. Please provide all other documentation upon which l Applicant relied in coming to its conclusion to conduct the reinspection of non-pressure boundary welds (ASME-NF and AWS) without removal of protective coatings, which was not provided in response to Questions Nos. 1-28.
l
Objection:
Applicants object to a request framed in terms of "all other documentation" on the grounds that the request is overly broad and insufficiently specific.
Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-30 Question / Request:
E-30. Will any welds other than non-pressure boundary ASME-NF and AWS be reinspected as part of the CPRT effort?
Answer:
Yes.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-31 Question / Request:
E-31. If the answer to Question No. E-30 is "yes,"
please list which types will be reinspected, and what they will be reinspected for.
Answer:
This information is or will be contained in the CPRT Central Files and Working Files, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the
' Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No . A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
1
.I
Interrogatory / Request No. E-32 Question / Request:
E-32. If the answer to Question No. E-30 is "yes,"
please state whether or not they will also be inspected without first removing existing protective coatings.
Answer:
, Paint will be removed from pressure boundary welds.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-33 i
Question / Request: -
- E-33. If the answer to Question No. 30 is "yes," please 4
fully explain your answer to Question No. E-32, with particular attention given to the reasons for removing any existing protective coatings prior to inspection, if that is the case.
Answer:
i Pressure boundary welds are considered to be more important to the maintenance of safety because they are inherently less redundant. By definition, pressure boundary welds are required to perform a containment l
function as well as.a load carrying function. Pressure l boundary welds are also subject to different pressure and thermal stresses than non-pressure boundary welds.
For all of these reasons, pressure boundry welds are
- considered by the applicable Codes to be more critical 1
-se-
a .
and are subject to more stringent inspection precedure's.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-34.
Questien/ Request:
E-34. Please provide complete copies of all written comments on, or correspondence about the study and the meeting briefing -- both by TUGCO personnel (including their contractors' employees, and/or attorneys) and by NRC personnel (including Region IV, and all other branches of the NRC, their attorneys and/or consultants).
Resoonse:
With respect to such documents prepared by TUGCO or CPRT personnel (other than attorneys), the documents are or will be in the files that will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
With respect to documents prepared by NRC personnel, to the extent that such documents are in the possession of the Applicants, they are or will be in the files to be produced in response to
-Interrogatory / Request No. A-14.
With respect to comments prepared by attorneys for the Applicants, the Applicants object to the production of such documents on the grouno that any a .
4 such documents are privileged from discovery.
5 Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-35 Question / Request:
E-35. Please provide complete copies of any revisions to the study as they are produced (if any).
Response
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been completed, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's I
or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
'l Interrogatory / Request No. E-36 Question / Request:
E-36. Please provide complete copies of any revisions, deletions, and/or additions to each and every procedure used in this portion of the reinspection effort.
Response
4 b
l i
l I
,l
.m. . . _ . _
Such documents, to the extent presently in existence or to the extent they will be in existence when the ISAP's and DSAP's have been compl'eted, are or will be contained either in the CPRT Central Files or the CPRT Working Files for particular ISAP's and DSAP's or both, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-37 Question / Request:
E-37. Please provide a complete list of each and every other meeting held between TUGCO and/or CPRT personnel and members of the Region IV NRC Staff on the same or any other topic or issue area being covered as a part of the CPRT effort.
Include in your list the following information for each one: the meeting location, the date(s) of the meeting, each and every participant at the meeting, and a complete copy of all records associated with the meeting (see Question No. 2 of this pleading for a list of requested
" records".) (Note: If there have been no such other meetings held, please so state.)
Answer:
No such records have been kept. NRC personnel from Region IV are, and have been, engaged in ongoing, daily inspection and auditing activities.
l l
Interrogatory / Request No. E-38 Question / Request:
E-38. If there had been'any other meetings on CPRT-related issues, areas, etc. held between TUGCO and/or CPRT personnel and members of the Region IV NRC Staff, please also provide the same information on each and every meeting as was requested concerning the July 2, 1985 meeting in Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 (all sub-carts), and any similar studies, comments, and revisions of same if any were discussed and/or i. resented during, before, or after any of these meetings (cf. Questions Nos. 1, 34, 35, and 36 for requested information).
Answer:
See answer to Interrogatory / Request No. E-37.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-39 Question / Request:
E-39. Please provide the same information requested in Questions Nos. 37 and 38 for any other meetings held between TUGCO and/or CPRT personnel and members of the NRC's TRT staff and/or consultants on the same or any other topic or issue area being covered as part of the CPRT effort.
Answer:
No such records are available. Personnel from
, NRC headquarters and from NRC consultants have been onsite frequently performing inspection and audit activities.
J Interrogatory / Request No. E-40
< Question / Request:
E-40."Please advise CASE in advance of any and all such future meetings. CASE would like to be afforded the opportunity to attend such meetings. Include in your answer whether or not Applicants voluntarily agree for such participation by CASE, as well as the extent of CASE's participation (observer only or active participant) to which Applicants will agree.
Objection:
A command such as this is not proper discovery i
under the Rules of Practice, and no response to it is called for.
Interrogatory / Request No. E-41 Question / Request:
- E-41. Provide copies of any and all documents (in the broad sense of the word, as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading, and including but not limited to: internal memoranda, informal notes, handwritten notes, etc.) which are discussed at, handed out at, relied upon, etc., regarding such i meetings. Meetings should be construed to i include visits such as the one currently planned wherein some members of the NRC Staff will meet at Stone & Webster's New York offices on August 29 and 30, 1985. We want all the information requested in Q. 37-39 on each meeting.
Objection:
i i The Applicants object to this request insofar ..s l
it is framed in terms of "all documents," on the ground that such a request is overly broad and insufficiently l :
I specific to permit an intelligent response. Applicants e
move for a protective order on this objection.
Response
To the extent that any such documents are i
relevant to the assessments and conclusions of CPRT, they are or will be contained in the CPRT files, the production of which is provided for in response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14.
F. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding CPRT Interrogatory / Request No. F-1 ,
Question / Request:
F-1. Please provide a complete copy of F.A. Webster's work, Developing Plans for TRT Issues, Civil / Structural / Mechanical CPRT, File No. 11.1-001, 3/12/85. (Cf. Appendix D, "CPRT Sampling
, Approach, Applications, and Guidelines, CPRT
> Plan, Rev. O, page 7 of 11, footnote **.)
Response
The requested document is contained in the CPRT Central files, the production of which is provided for in response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14.
Interrogatory / Request No. F-2 Question / Request:
! F-2. Please provide a complete copy of D.B. Owen's work, Handbook of Statistical Tables, Addison Wesley, 1962. (Cf. Appendix D, "CPRT Sampling 1
i l
l
i .
I l Approach, Applications, and Guidelines, CPRT
! Plan, Rev. O, page 7 of 11, footnote *.)
Objection:
- The Applicants object to a request to produce for inspection and copying a published work that is available from the publisher and the copying of which would be a violation of the laws of the United States of America. The Applicants move for a protective order i
on this objection.
Interrogatories / Requests Nos. F-3 and F-4 Question / Request:
J i F-3. Please provide a complete copy of all other i documents developed by F.A. Webster et al., in
- the process of developing sampling approaches, i applications and/or guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT effort.
l F-4. Please provide a complete copy of all other l documents relied on by Applicant and/or j
Applicant's CPRT response teams in developing and/or implementing the sampling approach, applications, and/or guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT effort.
Objection (Partial):
i The Applicants object to these requests insofar as they are framed in terms of "all documents," on the l ground that such a request is overly broad and
, insufficiently specific to permit an intelligent reply.
4
Response
To the extent relevant to the assessments and conclusions of CPRT, such documents are or will be contained in the CPRT Central or Working Files, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein.
j G. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding "Other" Interrogatory / Request No. G-1 puestion/ Request:
G-1. Provide a list of any and all contracts, purchase orders, letters of agreement, etc. (documents as i
defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) between Applicants or any of their employees or agents and Management Analysis Company (MAC).
Include in the list the dates of each such document, the general purpose or summary of each such document, and the result of each such
! document (such as a report being issued, etc.).
4 Objection j The Applicants object to this request insofar as
- it relates to any activity by MAC not involving the CPSES QA/QC program, on the ground that to that extent the request is not relevant to Contention 5, the only admitted contention in these proceedings. The 1
(
l
Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Response
To the extent that they relate to the CPSES QA/QC program, the documents requested will be produced for inspection and copying in accordance with paragraph 2 of " General Responses" above. To the extent that they relate to the CPRT efforts, the requested documents are included in the materials to be produced in response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-11.
Interrogatory / Request No. G-2 Question / Request:
G-2. Provide a copy of each document listed in 1.
preceding, as well as any and all other audits, reports, summaries, etc. (documents as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) either to MAC from Applicants or any of their employees or agents, of/from MAC to Applicants or any of their employees or agents. (If this information has not already been provided for the original MAC i Report already sent to the Board and parties by
- Applicants, provide this information and documents for that report also.)
i Objection (Partial):
i The Applicants find this request grammatically inscrutable. It is interpreted to call for the production of correspondence between the Applicants and i
MAC. To the extent of any such correspondence rela' ting l
l t
[
to the CPSES QA/QC program, the Applicants will produce j such documents in accordance with paragraph 2 of l " General Responses" above. To the extent of any I correspondence not related to the CPSES QA/QC program, l
the Applicants object to this request on tne ground that it is not relevant to Contention 5, the only
- admitted contention in this proceeding. To the extent
! that this request means anything other than correspondence, the Applicants object to this request on the ground that it is unintelligible. The
- Applicants move for a protective order on these 4
objections.
, Response:
See above.
H. Interrogatories / Requests Regarding "Cygna IAP, ete" Interrogatory / Request No. H-1 Question / Request:
! H-1 Provide the ANCO cable tray test report .
referenced in CYGNA's 3/27/85 letter 84056.061 to John Beck, TUGCO.
i i
l l
l
- 'a .
e l
- \
Response
1 The doc ment requested will be produced in t
accordance with' paragraph 2 of " General Responses" above.
Interrogatory / Request No. H-2 Question / Request:
H-2 Provide the concrete expansion anchor test data being collected by EPRI as part of the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) equipment qualification program. (As discussed in CYGNA's 6/11/85 letter 84056.071 to George Sliter, EPRI.)
Response
- The requested document will be provided in i
accordance with Paragraph 2 of " General Responses" l
above.
j Interrogatory / Request No. H-3 i
Question / Request:
H-3 Provide the documents requested by CYGNA in.its j 8/1/85 letter 84086.078 to John Beck, TUGCO l (referring to a 6/27/85 request).
- Response
No such documents have been provided to CYGNA.
Interre"atory/ Request No. H-4 Question / Request:
i H-4 What was Applicants' response to CYGNA's letter i referenced in 3. preceding? Provide a copy of f
i -e5-i I
(
_ _ _.___-_ __ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ . _ ~ - . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
any and all documents (in the broad sense, etc.)
- regarding your response.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory on i the ground that, if it calls f'or anything different from what is requested in Interrogatory / Request No. H-4 3, it is unintelligible, and if it does not, it is duplicative. The Applicants move for a protective order on this objection.
Interrogatory / Request No. H-5 Question / Request:
H-5 Provide the updated copy of CYGNA's documents received list for ASLB hearing related submittals (referenced in CYGNA's 8/7/85 letter 84042.40 to Jack Redding, TUGCO).
! Response:
The copy of the list that is in the Applicants' possession is the same as that transmitted to CASE by the letter of Nancy Williams, CYGNA, dated September 16, 1985, a.nd therefore the Applicants believe that
- CASE already has the document in its possession. If for some reason production is nevertheless required, the Applicants will produce the document in accordance i
l
t f -
l at the time and in the manner set forth in Paragraph 2 of " General Responses" above.
- Interrogatory / Request No. H-6 Question / Request
H-6 Provide CASE with copies of all documents supplied to CYGNA in response to CYGNA's questions (such as the ones which were attached l to CYGNA's 8/6/85 letter 84042.39 to CASE) at the time Applicants send them to CYGNA.
- Include in your response whether or not
-Applicants will voluntarily agree to provide CASE with such documents at the same time Applicants provide them to CYGNA.
- Objection:
A command such as this is not proper discovery under the Rules of Practice, and no response to it is called for.
i l
1 i
l
a .
, Signatures As to Answers: i
- I, Terry G. Tyler, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that I am the Program Director of the Comanche Peak Response Tem ("CPRT") (see " Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan," 6/28/85), that I am familiar with the information contained in the CPRT files and available to CPRT third-party personnel, that I have assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answers, and that the foregoing answers are true, except insofar as they are based on information that is available to the CPRT (third-party personnel) but not within my personal knowledge, as to which
. I, based on such information, believe them to be true, t) i Terry 9. Tyleg Mlge Sworn to before me this 2td day of c 7 --kar, 1985:
. F l -) k
&. 2-
}
- Notary Publig// ROBERT K. GAD, til My Commissiyn Expires
- / NOTARY PUSUC us wmm.w. t.+.m ein. 3, ISGS I
i As to Objections:
i I
t
. , , . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . , _ , _ _ _ _ , _ . _ - - - . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . .
F
~
t i /
2%
Thomas G. Dipan, Jr.
R. K. Gad IIf Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for the Applicants l
l O
, OCT 8 '85 14: 34 LICENSING-TUGCO PAGE.04 L. ED POWELL STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION: Executive Assistant FORMAL EDUCATION: Ph.D., Oklahoma State University,1972 M.S., Oklahoma State University, 1969 B.S., Northeastern State College, 1962 EXPERIENCE:
8/85 to Present Texas Utilities Generating Company, Dallas, Texas.
Executive Assistant.
2/84 to 8/85 Ed Powell Consulting, Richardson, Texas. Private consultant.to the utility industry.
3/77 to 3/84 TERA Corporation, Dallas, Texas. Senior Project Manager and Regional Environmental Manager for Southern / Southwestern Operations.
1/76 to 3/77 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Dallas, Texas. Program Manager and Besiness Development Manager. ,
9/72 to 12/76 Harza Enginee. ng Company, Chicago, Illinois. Project Manager, Water Resources Division.
Dr. Powell is currently serving as an Executive Assistant to Mr. John W.
Beck, Vice President of TUGCO. In this capacity he is responsible for certain day-to-day administrative functions pertaining to personnel, budgets, office operations, and coordination of interface with other groups j within TUGCO.
l Dr. Powell has more than 13 years of professional consulting experience.
This experience has focused on regulatory and planning aspects of energy development projects for the electric utility and mining industries.
r s\- . .-
SD' 'A 4
i 9~,
OCT 2 5 ' ~>b$ i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
com,y , '!
I S*!Q" $
\
L '
I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the att neys for the1 Applicants herein, hereby certify that on October 1985, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Herbert Grossman Chairman Alternate Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge 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 l Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements
! Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch
} 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555
. Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Appeal Panel Board Panel
! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l Washington, D.C. 20555 i
l Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis l Office of the Executive President, CASE i Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 L Commission i 7735 Old Georgetown Road l Room 10117
! Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i
l i
f Il
. t d
Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollem Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin
. Administrative Judge 3022 Porter Street, N.W., #304 Dean, Division of Engineering, Washington, D.C. 20008 Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Pla a Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mi=uno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Nancy Williams Mr. James E. Cummins Cygna Energy Services, Inc. Resident Inspector 101 California Street Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Suite 1000 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Francisco, California 94111 Commission P.O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 1 m Robert K. Ga II l
l 1
,