ML20204B665
| ML20204B665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1987 |
| From: | Selleck K ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - COMANCHE PEAK |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2864 CPA, NUDOCS 8703250125 | |
| Download: ML20204B665 (14) | |
Text
- _ - -- _____ ___ ____ __ -__ __ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
289/
agtAMD CORRESMW
- i DOCMEfCD +
USNRC ratsoi meren ie. seet W MR 23 P2:57 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOUfflu *;r h w <
before the 00CML nN4 4 SPvid ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD FRAtN4
)
In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING )
COMPANY et al. I
) Docket No. 60-445-CPA (Comanche Peak Hteam Electric )
Station, Unita 1 and 2) )
) i
)
f APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO l CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS l31t_ll67 -1) .
Purnuant to 10 CFR 5 2.740 ff, the Applicants propound the following interrogatories to Consolidated Intervenorm. .
An used in these Interrogatorien, the following terms have the i following meanings:
" Identify" with respect to a person means to state the name, !
businons/ corporate title nr.d businens/ corporate addrons. (
" Cite" with respuot to documents means to state its date, its l nuthor, the type of document, thn document's title (if any) nnd !
its present loont.lon (if known) . ,
"Porson" means naturni persons as well as businenn entition. !
t
" Document" means any printed, typowritten, handwritten or i otherwise recorded materint of overy nature.
"Connolidated Intervenorn", "you" and "your" refers to Meddio dredory and Citizens Annoolation for Sound Energy or either or .
both.
I i
y I
p[) l a ps6 >
e You have alleged (Amended Contnntion 2) that:
"The delay in cons truction af Uni t I uns enused Appiicnn tn
- 1ntentionnI conduct, which had no vnIid purpose and uns the renuit of corporate policies which have not been dincarded or repudinted by Applicantu."
- 1. Wit h rogard to your allogntion, pinnan upnoify n11 instnnenn of the Applicants' "intnntionn! conduct" upon which you bann your n11ogation. In your renponne, p!namn:
n) Iduntify n11 pornon(n) who engaged in this intentionts! conduct.
b) Specify thn dato(s) upon which the conduct utta undortaken.
c) thpinin procinnly how the niinged intentionni conduct enunod n dniny in construction of Unit li and, d) Cito n11 documnnts which nupport your conclusions.
- 2. What do you c1 nim was tho purponn of the Appliennts' "intontional conduct?"
n) 8tato all facts upon which you bano your olnia that the n11nged purponn in " invalid."
b) l'1onno identify n11 pornons having knowindgn of tho fnots ilnncribed in your nnnwnr to Interrogntory 2n.
- 3. 1, int all tbn "corpornto polloinn" which tlin Consolidated Intnrvonorn rn f o. n to it. Amended Contontion 2i and with runpoct to unohl n) Idontify the pornon(n) who formulated or promulgnted the "corpornto policinn".
b) Specify, with na much procinion na ponsibin, the d et tn ( s ) upon which thnnn "corpornto policins" worn formulated or promulgnted.
c) ftpnolfy whnn nach corpornto policy una first imp t omon tnil?
d) llow wnn onch "corpornto policy" impinmontoil?
- l. letnntify nny notion by the Applienntn' upon which the Connalidated Intervonorn roly to nupport the contontion that the Appilennta hnvn not dimenreind or repudantnd the n11ngnd
. g.
l "corpornto policion," and includo n donoription of: !
n) Who undortook thn action?
b) Whnn the notion occurrod?
01 Cito nil documents which unko rofornnon to thn n11ognd notion by thn Applicanta. l With rngard to the alleged hanen for Amended Contention 2:
- 5. Identity the document which thn Conno'idnted intnrvnnorn ,
rnfor to in Footnotn 2 nn supporting thn n11nand bnnon, l With regard to statement of Hanin A.1, viz.!
"Appi tonnt n dnlibara tely rnfused to take pon t t ivn notion to ruform their QA/QC prodrna in the faen of consistant criticism, . . ."
- 6. plonan apocify unch and nvory instanon in which the Applionnts havn refunnd to takn ponitivo notion to rnform their j QA/QC progrnal including in your annwnr -
ni A procian dnfinition of the "ponitivo notion" which wan rnfunnd.
b) Thn itinntition of thn pornon(s) who do11boratoly rnfunnd to tnko "ponitivo notion."
i of Thn datum on which the n11ognd "dntibornto rnfunnt" took pinen. :
di The oxnot mannor in which nach delibornto rnfunn!
wnn mndo manifont. and l ni A ottation to all documents which rnfor or reinto to thn "dn11bornto refuant."
- 7. Donoribn all orittoinmin) to which thn Connolldntnd Intervnnors rofor to in its utntomont of bnnis A.I.
- h. With rngard to nnah niinand criticina idontifind in romponno to Interrogatory H. plonnu annwnr the followings a) ti t a t n thn nouren of thn n11ognd critioinm.
b) indiento thn dnto(n) thn n11ognd crittoinm wnn mndo.
ol Was thn niinged crittelum communiented to the Applionntn?
. 3
e d) If the alleged crittolam was communicated to tho :
Applicants, identify the person (s) to whom it was !
communicated. [
e) If the alleged crittains was communiented to the Applicants, indicate the manner in which the Applicants ;
wore informod.
fI Htato the dates on which the n11cnod criticism was ,
communtanted to the App 11onnte. ,
4 m) Cite all documents which indicate the existence of the allnged criticism and all documents which indiento that the alleged critiolum was communicated to the Applicants. ,
With regard to statement of basis A.2, vis.t
" Applicants have (niled to properly denign their pinnt, t specificallyt n) Appliennts failed to correctly apply fundamental l enginenring principien, L b) Appliennen failed to properly identify unique denidnn in their pSAN, c) Applicanta constructed auch of their pinnt prior to its design having been completed, d) Appltennta knen ins 1ed to compiy with 10 CFR l' art SU, Appendicos A and H, including their failure to .
(
promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberntely refused to take ponitive notton to correct such deficiencien. "
- 9. Lint nynry instance where the Applicants havn "failnd to correctly apply fundamental endinnering principion."
- 10. For any instanon listed in response to Interrogatory D. !
plenne nnawer the followinal i n) Specify which fundamental engineering princip1n was f allegedly viointed, j bl Htate the nourcen from uhtoh you derive the !
nngineering principle. l c) Identify the personin) who atingedly failed to ,
apply the nnginnering prinolpin. ;
1 t
t
. t
e d) Stato the dato(n) on which the altoged misappliention occurred.
e) Cito all documents which reference or nupport your conclusion that such a fatturn occurred.
- 11. 1. int onch " unique donign" that tho Applicanta fniled to "proporly identify" in thnir PSAlt.
- 12. l'or onoh design linted in romponno to Intorrogatory 11, planno explain the bratu for your conclusion that it wan/in "uniquo."
- 13. 1. int ovory nmpoot of t he plant which was conutructed bnforo its design una completed. nnd includn nn oxplanation of any prinolplo or rnquiremont which dictated any difforent acquenco of donign and construction from that employed by tho ,
Appltunntn.
II. l int ovory noction of to Cleil part 50, Appendicou A and U that thn App 11canta hnvo not complied with.
- 15. l'or overy anotion of 10 CI'll Part 50, Appendicos A and 11 identiflod in romponen to intorrogatory 14, plonso annwor the followingt n) Exp1nin the procino mnnner in which the Appliennt fnlled tc comp 1) with f.he spe"Ified meetion.
b) Indientn the dntnin) thn altognd failuro to comply took pinco, c) Identify all person (n) who woro involved in thin allognd fnilure to comply, d) Cito nil documnnta which indiento that the Appliennte n11ndodly failed to comply.
- 10. 1. int ovary inntanon whorn, in the connotidntnd intnrvonors' opinion, thu Appliennta fn11od to promptly idontify donign defioloncien.
- 17. 1. int ovary inntnnon whorn, in the connolidated intervonors' opinion, the Applionnta failed to corroot donign doriciencien.
- 18. I, int ovory inntanon whero, in thn Conno11dnted Intervonorn' opinion, the Applionnte "do11borately rnfused" to tako ponitivo nation to corroot dorioinnoinn.
With regard to statement of banin A.3, vis.t 5
l "Applican t s ignored consistent criticism of their Q.1/QC progran over a period of n t lennt ten yonra and of their design over a period of at lenut four years, in the face of unrnings by independen t audi t orn, the NRC, and even the Atomio Snfuty and Liconning Dourd. As a renult of thenn deliborate notionn, App!icantn butIt an unlicensable plant which must now be reinnpected, redonigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be mndo iscennablv. There in no valid purpose disen by Appliennts for why, in the face of those cri t icismn, they refuned to chanste their QA/QC implementation or addrenn and corrnet design deflaiencies. "
- 19. Identify all oritiolum of the Applicantn' 4A/QC program which the Connotidnted Intervnnorn nilogo the Appliennts hnvo ignorod.
- 20. For each criticism identified in romponno to Interrogatory 19, plonno nnnwor thet following:
n) Stato the nourco of the ortticina.
b) Stato tho dato evneh n11erged critioins wnn endo.
c) Dotn11 tho tinte and manner in which the criticism communionted to the Applienntu.
d) Cito all documents which indiento the oxintonco n' the allogod criticinm and all documents which indio.sto that tho allogod criticinm unn communicated to the Applienntn.
- 21. Idontify n11 criticinm of the Applicants' donign which the Conno11 dated Intervonorn allogo the Applicants have ignored.
- 22. For onch critioinm idontiflod in romponne to intorrogntory 21, planno provido tho following n) Stato the nourco of the criticium.
b) State the dato onch alleged criticium wan mudo, c) Detail the dato nnd mannor in which the critioinm communicated to the Applicantn?
d) Cito all documents which indtonto the existence of the n11ognal critioium nnd n11 documents which indicate that tho allegod criticinm wan communicated to tho Applicantn.
- 23. Stato the Connolidnted Intervonorn' understanding of how tho Appliennta "lvnoreti" tho alleged critioinmi and
.o.
e n) Identify the pornon(s) who the Consolidnted Intervenorn nilogo " ignored" the criticism.
b) Stato why the Connolldnted Intervonors ansert the allegod action was "deliberato".
c) Cito all documents which indicate that the alleged criticism unn ignored.
- 21. List ovory unrning by indopondent auditorm to which the Connotidated Intervonorn refer in statomont of basin A.3.
- 25. Lint ovory warning by the NHC to which the Consolidated intorvonorn refor in statomont of bania A.3.
- 20. List overy unrning by the Atomic Safoty and Licensing Ilonrd to which the Consolidnted Intervonors refer in statomont of banin A.3.
- 27. List overy instance whore tho Applicants refused to chnngo their QA/4C implomontntion.
- 28. For ovory instance listed in response to Interrogatory 27, plonno annwor tho following:
a) Identify the person (s) who no refused.
b) Indiente on what dato(s) onch auch refunal was mnnifont.
c) Cito n1L documents which support or reinto to anch refunn1.
- 29. List overy instance whoro the Applicants have refused to addrons and correct donign doficiencien.
n) Identify the person (n) who no refused.
b) Indicato on what dato(n) onch auch refusal una manifest.
c) Cito all documents which support or reinto to onch refusal.
With rogard to statement of basis 11, viz.:
"atppliennta have never naknowledged that thin or any other corporato policy uns the anuno ot* the doiny or i that anythind in the control ol' corpornto mnnndomont
, enunod the doiny, and thun <1ppliennts have never
! disenrded or repudiated the policien that enuned the
! - f-
'a delay. This basis is supported by the absence of any sta tements of repudiation and of any s tated inten t to discard any corporate policy."
- 30. Do the Consolidated Intervenors agree with the following statement:
"The Applican ts canno t discard a corporate policy which the Applican ts have never adopted. "
- 31. If the Consolidated Intervenors does not agree with the statement in Interrogatory 30, explain why.
With regard to statement of basis C, viz.:
" Applicants have actually continued in place the corporate policies and personnel primarily responsible for the original delay."
- 32. List all the " corporate policies" to which the Consolidated Intervenors refer in statement of basis C.
- 33. Define the phrase "actually continued in place" as used in statement of basis C.
- 34. Define the phrase " original delay" as used in statement of basis C.
- 35. List the personnel who are "primarily responsible for the original delay."
With regard to statement of basis C.1, viz.:
"The people running the plant now are most of the same persons who made the original decision to ignore the legal requirements for building the plant in order too build it fas ter. Appli can ts ' September 16, 1986, Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated In terrenors ' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985)."
- 36. Identify each of the person (s) to whom the Consolidated Intervenors refer as " running the plant now" in statement of basis C.1.
- 37. When was the " original decision" made which the Consolidated Intervenors refer to in statement of basis C.1.
- 38. List all " legal requirements for building the plant" which you contend were ignored.
With regard to statement of basis C.2, viz.:
6 Q
"Applican ts ' redesign, reinspection, and reconstruction program is in fact a continuation of the previous corporate policies which caused the delay."
- 39. Please describe precisely each and every one of the
" previous corporate policies which caused the delay."
- 40. Please describe precisely the " delay" which you contend resulted from such corporate peiicies.
With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"Th e CPRT i s n o t sufficien tly independen t from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposi tion of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now employed a t CPSES), made the original judgments tha t allowed the deficient condi tions to exist."
- 41. Please list all " original judgments" referred to by the Consolidated Intervenors in statement of basis C.2.a. and identify the personnel who made each such " original judgment."
- 42. Please list all the " deficient conditions" referred to by the Consolidated Intervenors in statement of basis C.2.a.
- 43. Please identify each and every TUEC personnel referred to by the Consolidated Intervenors in statement of basis C.2.a.
- 44. Please identify each and every CPRT " judgment [] on the safety significance 'of" a deficiency (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan) which the Consolidated Intervenors contend was "made by TUEC personnel."
- 45. Please. identify each and every CPRT " judgment [] on the safety significance of" a deviation (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan) which the Consolidated Intervenors contend was "made by TUEC personnel."
- 46. Please define exactly how much " independence" would be
" sufficient" and include in your answer all references which you contend support the requirement for such independence.
With regard to statement of basis C.2.b., viz.:
"CPRT reinspections are being conducted wi thout complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documen ta ti on , and any verification of the work performed impossible. "
,g 8
4
- 47. Identify which CPRT reinspections you contend are being conducted without complying with Appendix B.
- 48. Do you contend that any of these CPRT reinspections are required to comply with Appendix B?
- 49. Please explain, with adequate citation or references, the basis of your contention.
- 50. Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Intervenors contend that CPRT reinspections are impossible of trending.
- 51. Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Intervenors contend that CPRT reinspections are impossible of documentation.
- 52. Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Intervenors contend that CPRT reinspections are impossible of verification.
With regard to statement of basis C.2.e, viz.:
"The work tha t Applican ts propose to conduct under the extended cons truction permi t represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended. .No such amendmen t has been sough t or received. This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations has caused many problems, including a cons truction work hal t to awai t staff approval of the proposed extension of the construction permit, which Applicants had allowed to expire wi thout seeking a renewal . "
- 53. Please specify the precise manner each respect in which the Consolidated Intervenors contend in which "the work that the Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction permit" is contended to " represent major changes in the original proposed construction and design," including in your answer the exact proposed work which is the basis of this contention and the source and content of the " original proposed construction and design" from which it is alleged to deviate.
- 54. Please specify the " law" which supports your contention that the proposed work "cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended."
- 55. Please specify the precise " policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations" to which you refer, and:
' k; a) Identify the person (s) who formulated or promulgated this-policy.
b) Specify, with as much precision as possible, the
- date(s) upon which this." policy" was formulated or promulgated.
c) Specify when this policy was first implemented or made manifest?
d) Describe how " policy" was implemented?
- 56. Please list each and every one of the "many problems" which you contend were caused by this policy.
4 4
i 4
.tlith regard to statement of basis D:
- 57. Please identify the precise basis for your contention that the Applicants must " adopt and implement a redesign, reinspection and reconstruction program that contains at least
[the elements listed in D.1-7]", including in your answer the legal source of the requirement for each such element.
With regard to expert testimony:
- 58. Do the Consolidated Intervenors intend to offer the testimony of an expert witness in support of their contentions?
If so, please state, for each such witness:
- a. The identity of the witness;
- b. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify;
- c. The substance of each fact to which the witness is expected to testify;
- d. The substance of each opinion to which the witness is expected to testify; and
- e. A summary of the grounds for each such opinion.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY For the Owners of CPSES Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III William S. Eggeling Kathryn A. Selleck ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street Boston, Mass. 02110 (617) 423-6100 (Attorneys for Texas Utilities Electric Company)
3-DCLXETEf!
USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17 ME 23 P2:57 I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on March 18, 1987 [0 h k ( s$ ki'ce of BRANCH the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge Midwest Office 881 W. Outer Drive 3424 N. Marcos Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911 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 Washington, D.C. 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
4 i
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 Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Executive Director Christic Institute-Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1324 North Capitol Street 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20036.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive !
Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
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 yashington, D.C. 20555 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111
/ Kat.hryn A. Selleck e