ML20140D684

Affidavit of Mi Miller Re Torrey Pines Technology,Inc Reinsp of safety-related Mechanical Equipment.Factual Matters in Marcus Assessment Have Not Been Withheld from Discovery Process.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20140D684
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	03/20/1986
From:	Miller P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
Shared Package
ML20140D672	List: ML20140D665 ML20140D684
References
OL, NUDOCS 8603260413
Download: ML20140D684 (7)

Text

4 March 20, 19d6 X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL I. MILLER Michael I. Miller, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I ar a partner in the law firm of Isham, Lincoln &

Beale, counsel tc Cc =cnwealth Edison Ccmpany in the above-captioned proceeding. I have overall responsibility for the preparation of and presentation of the Company's evidence in the operating license hearings. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein.

2. In August, 1985 I determined that I required an evaluation of certain aspects of the reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment by an organization independent of Commonwdalth Edison Company or its architect / engineer, Sargent &

Lundy. I retained Torrey Pines Technology Inc. for~that purpose and specifically directed the aspects of the reinspection program which I wished them to evaluate. Torrey Pines Technology Inc.

employs personnel who are expert in evaluating various reinspection programs and other quality assurance issues. See e.g. Long Island Exhibit 3.

(Filed March 20, 1986) 9603260413 860324 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G PDR

4 4

-2 Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

LBP-83-5, 18 NRC 445, 617-18 (1983). The reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment is involved in contentions 1.A, 6.A, 10.A, 12.A and 13.A. I have relied on the conclusions expressed to me by Torrey Pines in developing the litigation position which the Company will take on these issues.

Torrey Pines has not been identified as an expert witness in this proceeding nor have I communicated its conclusions te any employee of Commonwealth Edison Company or Sargent &

Lundy. No fact known to Torrey Pines regarding safety-related mechanical equipment reinspection program has seen withheld from discovery.

3. In the course of preparation for the evidentiary hearings in this matter a number of reports on various corrective action programs have been prepared and' submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company. Several of these reports deal directly with issues which are in contention. These are the report on safety-related mechanical equipment (contention items 1.A, 6.A, 10.A, 12.A and 13.A), the material traceability verification report (con-tention item 10.B) and the corroded pipe report (contention item ll.C). These reports were issued on January 10, 1986, November 15, 1985 and January 13, 1986, respectively. In each case the report satisfied both a commitment that the Company had made to the NRC Staff and was a part of the preparation for the evidentiary hearings on these issues. In each instance I and other attorneys from my

) firm participated in the drafting of the reports and commented

\

\'

on various preliminary drafts of each document. In.many instances handwritten notes by attorneys appear.on the drafts for which a privilege from discovery is now claimed.

Changes in organization, approach and presentation of data in these reports occurred in part as a result of advice and participation of counsel. A review of the drafts would therefore disclose the mental impressions and theories of the attorneys whc participated in this process. In no instance have. factual matters which are set forth in the drafts been withheld fro the discovery process.

4. I and other atterneys from my firm have partici-pated in the drafting cf the BCAP report. At the time this preparation took place it was not certain whether the BCAP~

report would be used as part cf the applicant's direct case in this. proceeding. A decision has now been made that the underlying conclusions and analyses contained in that report will not be a part of the applicant's direct case. It is, however, possible that a portion of the BCAP effort may be evidence in rebuttal. It is for that reason that applicant has turned over in discovery all of the underlying BCAP documents and has responded to interrogatories on BCAP. Since the preparation of the BCAP report involved the same partici-pation of attorneys as described in paragraph 3, the mental impressions and theories of attorneys would be disclosed by a review of the drafts of the BCAP report. In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in the drafts of the BCAP report been withheld from the discovery process.

4 4

4

5. At an early stage in this proceeding, after the contentions had been admitted, but well before the scope of the evidence necessary to respond to each contention had been established, I requested an assessment of.various re-medial programs under way at the Braidwood site. I asked George Marcus, then Special Assistant to the Company's Manager of Projects, to assess these programs for me. This was done so that I might understand the scope and status of  !

these programs as well as any issues which Mr.-Marcus identified regarding their implementation. The results of Mr. Marcus' analysis was communicated only to me and to Michael J. Wallace, Eraidwood Pro]ect Manager and Thomas Maiman, Commonwealth Edison's Manager of Projects, the individual with overall respensibility for the construction of the Braidwood Station as well as other major construction projects.

Mr. Marcus' assessments were used by me to determine the direction of our firm's efforts in preparing for the evi-dentiary hearing. Mr. Wallace's and Mr. Maiman's participation in this process was necessary so that if additional resources were required with respect to any specific program at my request, they could direct that these resources be made available.

.In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in

= --

yy -a - , - - --e m 4-..,- d-.-y+,.eese,

s a,,

Mr. Marcus' assessment, been withheld from the discovery process.

/

/

fl/

. pf..;>j J lli AW Michael I. Miller Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Sist floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated: March 20, 1986 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th da; cf March, 1936.

.V Notary Public r,j ::-- *;;: D,; .;: .:'. ; y I". I337

4 k

n 6

.g>

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) .)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Susan.E. Babb, one of'the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, certify that copies of the Letter of Susan E. Babb to Herbert Grossman Esq. and

.Mr. William L. Clements, dated March 24, 1986 and the attached copy of Exhibit 3 of Applicant's Response to Intervenors' Motion to Compel Discovery was served on those persons listed on the attached Service List by United States mail postage prepaid this 24th day of March, 1986 except as otherwise noted on the Service List.

.Ofe of the Attorneys for:

uCommonwealth Edison Company, Inc.

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago,. Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500

SERVICE LIST

(

Dr. Richard F. Cole Ms. .Bridget Little Rorem Administrative: Law Judge 117 North Linden Street

. Atomic' Safe'.y and Licensing P.O. Box 208 Board Essex, IL 60935

. United ~ States Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

• Robert Guild Washington, DC 20555 Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Timothy W. Wright, III Dr. A. Dixon Callihan BPI Administrative Law' Judge 109 North Dearborn Street 102 Oak Lane Suite 1300 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Chicago', IL 60602

~**Stuart'Treby, Esq. Charles Jones, Director Elaine I. Chan, Esq. Illinois Emergency Services

. Office of the. Executive Legal and Disaster Agency Director 110 East Adams

~ United Etates Nuclear Regulatory Springfield, IL 62705 Commission Washington, DC 20555 William Little, Director Braidwood Project Atomic Safety and Licensing Region III Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 799 Roosevelt Road

' Washington, DC- 20555 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Atomic Safety.a'd n Licensing Janice A. Stevens

' Appeal Board Panel (For Addressee Only)

United States Nuclear Regulatory United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 7920 Norfolk Avenue Phillips Building Mr. William L. Clements Bethesda, MD 20014 Chief, Docketing and Services United States Nuclear-Regulatory George L. Edgar, Esq.

Commission Thomas A. Schmutz, Esq.

Office of the Secretary Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Wachington, DC 20555 1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036

• By. Messenger Delivery on March 24, 1986

• • By Federal Express on March 24, 1986