ML20205Q707

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Further Response to FOIA Request for Records Re NRC Comanche Peak Task Force.App H Documents Encl & Available in Pdr. Portions of App H Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5). Review Continuing
ML20205Q707
Person / Time
Site: Catawba, Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date: 05/22/1986
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML20204J134 List:
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606030022
Download: ML20205Q707 (18)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. , [(#**,%g ,og UNITED STATES ), g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, .g WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 \\...../ m i a em Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Director Environmental Whistleblower Clinic Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F0IA-85-59

Dear Ms. Garde:

This is in further response to your letter dated January 21, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), records related to the NRC Comanche Peak Task Force established in March 1984. We are now placing into the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) one additional box of records (box number seven) in the QA/QC category, covering Appendix H records numbered 1 through 257. Portions of the records identified at numbers 79 through 93, 95 through 98, 100 through 112, 145 through 149, 199 through 201, 203 through 236, 238 through 247, and 249 are being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. The withheld portions contain the advice, opinions, and recommendations of the staff concerning potential violations. The nonexempt portions of the Appendix H records are being placed in PDR file F0IA-85-59 under your name, s We are not disclosing the records identified at numbers 2,125 through 128, 136 through 139, 141, 142, 152, 162, and 253 and portions of the records identified at 4 through 9, 14, 15, 18 through 22, 75 through 79, 94, 99, 106, 111, 125 through 135, 140, 202, 211, 213, 216, 225, 233, 234, 236, 237, 240 through 243, 245, 248, and 249. We are not invoking an F0IA exemption regarding these records in light of the agreement reached between you and the NRC staff at a meeting held on May 8,1985. This agreement was summarized in a letter to you from Joseph M. Felton, dated May 15, 1985. The information that has been deleted from these records consists of names and other identifying information concerning allegers, interviewees, and other individuals. Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production of disclosure is contrary to'the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. This denial may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision." l 8606030022 860522 PDR FOIA FDR CARDE85-59 I

Ms. Garde A separate set of the released records is being made available for public inspection and copying at the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the University of Texas Library, 701 South Cooper Street, Arlington, Texas. Additional boxes of records in the QA/QC category are currently under review and will be placed in the PDR and LPDR in the coming weeks. Sincerely 7 0 f Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated t

o Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H Box 7 - QA/QC j DATE TITLE PAGES 1. 11/4/83 Oliver B. Cannon - Department 2 Correspondence, Letter to: Film-from: R. B. Roth,

Subject:

Meeting 11/3/83 TUSI 2. 11/9/83 Calendar Notes - Exhibit 1 35 3. 11/28/83 Oliver B. Cannon - Memo from: 12 R. B. Roth to: R. A. Trallo,

Subject:

Coating Overview Task Group Report 4, 8/14/84 U.S. NRC - Certificate of 2 Service, CASE's Motion Regarding ANI Documents Docket Nos. 50-445-1 and 50-446-1 5. 8/14/84 CASE letter to Gary Mizuno, Esq 2 from: CASE, Subject CPSES Units i 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-445 & 50-446 6. 8/14/84 US NRC Atomic Safety & Licensing 8 Board, CASE's Motions Regarding ANI Documents, Docket Nos. 50-446-1 & 50-446-1 7. 10/19/85 US NRC Transcript of License 198 presentation 8. 10/26/85 US NRC-Case Brief-Docket # 13 50-445-2 & 50-446-1 9. 10/26/84 Govt. Accountability Project 14 Letter to Harold Denton from: GAP,

Subject:

CPSES Program Plan, October 8, 1984

Re: FOIA-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages

10. 10/28/84 Departmental Correspondence 4

to: R. B. Roth, from: Alleger

Subject:

Texas Utilities Services Letter dated, October 27, 1983

11. 10/28/84 Govt Accountability Project 1

Letter to: Vince Noonan from: GAP,

Subject:

Request for Non-Disclosure of Relevant Alleger Documents & Request for 01 Investigation

12. 10/29/84 Govt. Accountability Project 2

Letter to: Ben Hayes from: Louis Clark

Subject:

Comanche Peak

13. 11/5/84 US NRC Memo to Distribution 2

from: Vince Noonan

Subject:

Transmittal of Documents for Information 14, 11/7/84 CASE Transcript - Technical Interview 92

15. 11/7/84 Technical Interview 91 16, 12/18/84 ASLB Memorandum 82 (concerning welding issues)

In PDR, AN0 8412190322 50-445G

17. No date Attachment A - Recommendations 4

for TRT Reorganization

18. No date ANI Reports -- Design, etc 11
19. No date ANI Reports - Minimum Wall 3
20. No date ANI Reports -- Training 8
21. No date ANI Reports - Document Control 12
22. No date ANI Reports - Prompt Identi-13 fication & Correction of a

Nonconformances 2

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 23, 5/31/79 CPSES/FSAR 1

24. 10/14/82 SIS Report 11-006 5

25, 10/14/82 SIS Record for Monitoring 3 QA/QC Programs #314

26. 11/11/82 SIS Record for Monitoring 4

QA/QC Programs #322A

27. 11/18/82 SIS Record #327 6
28. 12/20/82 SIS Report 016 3
29. 1/10/83 SIS Report 005 7

30, 1/13/83 SIS Record - #334 2

31. 3/1/83 SIS Record - #339 2
32. 3/8/83 SIS Record - #341 2
33. 4/21/83 SIS Record - #346 5
34. 4/21/83 SIS Report 9-002A 4
35. 4/21/83 SIS Record #347 2

36, 4/21/83 SIS Record #347 TRT 2 Copy

37. 5/26/83 SIS Report G-044 2
38. 6/2/83 SIS Record #353 2
39. 6/7/83 SIS Record #355 3
40. 6/22/83 SIS Report 4-003-2 5
41. 6/29/83 SIS Report G-051 9
42. 6/30/83 SIS Report 10-022 3
43. 7/1/83 SIS Record #356 2
44. 7/2/83 SIS Record #357 TRT Copy 3

4

45. 7/2/83 SIS Record #357 3
46. 7/11/83 CPSES/FSAR Amendment 41 3
47. 8/3/83 SIS Record #362 A 7
48. 8/11/83 SIS Record #361 A 7
49. 8/18/83 SIS Record #363 A 32
50. 8/18/83 SIS Record A TRT Copy 34 l

3

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages i

51. 8/23/83 SIS Record #364 7
52. 9/27/83 SIS Report 16-009 4
53. 10/5/83 SIS Report 10-024 2

54, 10/7/83 SIS Record #365 2 55, 10/21/83 SIS Record #366 12

56. 10/31/83 SIS Record #367-A 7
57. 11/9/83 SIS Record #369 4

58, 11/18/83 SIS Record #367-B 7

59. 1/5/84 SIS Report 10-030 3
60. 1/23/84 Brown & Root Memo 4

~ to B. Walker from 4 J. T. Blixt,

Subject:

CPSES 35-1195 SIS Report 5-002

61. 1/24/84 SIS Report 10-031 2
62. 2/6/84 SIS Record 371 4
63. 2/17/84 SIS Report 10-032 4
64. 4/13/84 SIS Report 10-033 2
65. 4/18/84 SIS Report 10-034 3
66. 1/'.5/85 NRC Memo to Darrell 2

Eisenhut from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Nov. 14-16, 1984 trip report to Comanche Peak

67. 2/5/85 Handwritten Memo to Vincent 2

Noonan from H. Livermore

Subject:

CASE letter to Gary Mizuno regarding ANI Reports at Comanche Peak

68. No date Attachments List 7
69. No date ANI Reports - ARC strikes 4

4 ~, - -.. . ~ -

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages

70. No date ANI Reports - Violation of 3

Hold Points

71. No date ANI Reports - Intimidation 3
72. No date ANI Reports - Tests 2
73. No date Handwritten Notes - No title 8

18-005 1028 also 334 1029

74. No date Handwritten Notes - No title 1
75. 1/18 CYGNA Energy Services 17 Independent Verification Programs Grand Gulf - EMRICO FERMI - 2 Comanche Peak
76. 7/26/84 US NRC Letter to M. D. Spence 20 From CASE, RE: Dockets:

50-445/84-08 50-446/84-08

77. 9/18/84 US NRC letter to M. D. Spence 17

Subject:

Comanche Peak

78. 10/8/84 CASE Comments on Applicants 18 10/8/84 Program Plan to Respond to 9/18/84 Technical Review team (TRT) Report
79. 10/19/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER AC-24 14 AC-35/CP2 attached
80. 10/20/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 7 14 DCP3 concrete voids / CAT 4 attached
81. 10/20/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 8 10 Allegation 10 DCP3 attached
82. 10/21/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 6 6

AC-26/CP3 attached

83. 10/21/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 7-13 6

/CP3 Attached 5

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 84, 10/21/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 11 7 CP3 Attached

85. 10/21/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER AC-44 6

Allegation 17/CP3 Draft 6 Attached

86. 10/21/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 8 8

Allegation 1/CP3 attached

87. 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 6 4

AQC-10 Category 7 CP1 Attached i

88. 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 5 15 DCP2 Attached 89, 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 7 11 j

Attached

90. 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 5 7

Cat. #14/AE-17 attached

91. 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 6 10 Attached
92. 10/22/84 SSER Draft 6 AQC CP2A 7

attached

93. 10/22/84 SSER Draft 9 DCP3 attached 8
94. 10/23/84 Executive Suninary 49 Mechanical Piping
95. 10/24/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER Draft 23 5 AC-30 Attached 96, 10/26/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER Draft 29 2/CP6 Attached
97. 10/31/84 Coatings SSER 7 40
98. 10/31/84 SSER Route Sheet AQC-3, 11 etc 12 Attached
99. 11/84 Draft - Before Administration 12 Judges 100, 11/1/84 Handwritten Notes - SSER 12 A00-7-14-NCRs attached 6

F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 101. 11/6/84 Handwritten Notes SSER Parts 14 of BNL-14, 25, etc. attached 102.11/6/84 Handwritten Notes SSER - CP 33 Coatings 3 attached 103. 11/8/84 SSER Test Program 1 & 2 18 104. 11/8/84 SSER Test Program 4 7 105. 11/8/84 SSER Allegation AT-14 8 106. 11/8/84 SSER Test Program 7 5 l 107, 11/8/84 SSER Test AT-15 14 I 108. 11/13/84 Draft 2 40 j 109, 11/14/84 Handwritten Notes SSER 7 Comanche Peak t Input Cont. Attached 4 110. 11/21/84 SSER - Electrical 1,2,3,AE-17,5, 6,7,8,9 92 111. 11/08/84 AT-18 Test Program Category 8 6 112. 11/08/84 SSER Test Program 3 4 113. 8/31/84 NRC Electrical & Instrumentation 14 Technical Review Team - Sumary Review of Allegations for CPSES 114 10/1/84 US NRC Before Administrative 4 Judges Docket N. 50-445 446 Application for Operating License 115. 10/22/84 SSER Route Sheet SSER Draft 6 4 Category No. 16/CP3 116. 11/2/84 Routing Slip - to Vince Noonan 9 from Lawrence C. Shao,

Subject:

Potential Open Issues of Comanche Peak TRT Review In Mechanical Piping 117. 11/8/84 CPSES NRC TRT - SSER Coatings 79 i 4 Coating Procedures - Draft 1 118, 11/25/84 TUGC0 Letter 10/1/84 17 7

Re: FOIA-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 119. 1/18/85 Scope of Civil / Structural 13 Allegations 120. 1/18/85 Status Report in Mechanical 19 Piping Area 121. No date V. Miscellaneous Area 7 122. No date Dockets 50-445 446, Draft letter 22 to Texas Utilities Electric Company to M. D. Spence from Darrell Eisenhut

Subject:

Comanche Peak Review 123. 11/30/84 Draft Supplement 7 to SSER 33 124. No date Handwritten draft of Executive Summary of Civil and Structural Team Summary 13 7 125. 5/1/84 Statement of Alleger 126. 05/08/84 Statement of Alleger 2 127. 08/01/84 USNRC TRT - Technical Interview 78 128. 08/01/84 Alleger Interview 3 129. 08/07/84 Documents Control Allegation 4 130. 08/21/84 Alleger I'nterview 3 131. 08/21/84 Telecon with Alleger 3 132. 08/22/84 Telecon with Alleger 3 133. No date Issues of A11eger partial 11 134. No date Issues of Alleger partial 3 135. No date Issues of Alleger partial 4 136. No date Issues of Alleger partial 1 136a.No date Issues of Alleger partial 8 137. No date Issues of Alleger partial 11 138. No date Issues of Alleger partial 6 139. No date Affidavit of Alleger Partial 1 140. No date Issues of Alleger 11 141. No date Statement of Alleger 6 142. No date Affidavit of Alleger 11 8 e 1

Re: F01A-85-59 i APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 143. 8/2/84 Comanche Peak Non Conformance 1 Report 144. 8/2/84 Comanche Peak Non Conformance 1 Report 145. 8/28/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER Electrical 11 l 8 Attached 146. 8/28/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER Electrical 17 l 1 Attached 147. 8/28/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER 6 Electrical 9 attached 148. 8/28/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER 11 Electrical 5 attached 149. 8/3/84 SSER Route Sheet - SSER Electrical 100

  1. 1, 2, 3, CP1/AE-17 Electrical 6, 10/CP1, 13/CP3, 15/CP2, 16/ CPI 150. 9/19/83 US NRC In the Matter of Texas 33 Utilities Applicants Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of Friction Forces 151. 9/28/84 Comanche Peak - Response to CFR 4

50.57(c) 1 152. No date Partial - IV Factual Background 12 153. 5/31/79 CPSES/FSAR 17.1.16 Corrective 2 Action l 154. 8/7/81 CPSES/FSAR - Partial 1 155. 1/27/82 NRC Policy and Planning Guidance 16 156,7/11/83 CPSES/FSAR Amendment 41 1 Partial from Nunzio J. Palladino 1 9

Re: F0!A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 157. 5/1/84 US NRC In the Matter of Duke 25 Power Co., Et A1, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 - Docket Nos. 50-413/50-414 158, 6/84 TRT Guidance 19 159. 6/15/84 Control of Reportable 5 Deficiencies Report 160. 6/29/84 TUGC0/CPSES - Records and 44 Records Retrieved 161. 6/29/84 US NRC In the Matter of Texas 62 Utilities Electric Co. - Applicants' Response Concerning Records Retrieval 162. 8/84 CPSES - Alleged Climate of Intimi-49 dation 163. 8/3/84 US NRC Motion for Authorization to 29 Issue a License to Load Fuel & Conduct Certain Precritical Testing 164. 8/24/84 US NRC Memo !!equest for Evidence 3 Relevant to fuel Loading 165. 8/27/84 NRC TRT Coranche Peak Units 1 & 2 3 Electricai Allegations & Categories Cross reference 166. 9/7/84 US NRC Note for H. Livermore, 36 L. Shao, R. Bangart from Annette Vietti 167. 9/10/84 US NRC Memo to M. D. Spence from 30 from L. Bangart In Reply Refer to: Docket: 50-445/ 84-16 10

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 168. 9/13/84 US NRC-In The Matter of Texas 41 Utilities Electric Co. et, al CPSES Units 1 and 2 - Applicants' Supplement to Motion for Authorization Pursuant to 10 CFR and 50.57(c) 169. 9/19/83 US NRC Memo to Office 30 Directors Regional Adminis-trators from William J. Dircks

Subject:

Proposed NRC Manual Chapter 0517, " Management of Allegations" 170. 10/1/84 US NRC Application for Operating 4 License in the Matter of Texas Utilities 171. No date Miscellaneous Pages - No specific 13 title 172. No date CPSES Document Control Center Chart 2 173. No date CPSES Document Control Activities 2 Milestones 174. 5/8/79 Brown & Root Drawing #FSE 00159 1 175. 8/28/79 Brown & Root Drawing #FSE 00159 1 176. 11/14/80 Drawing Mark #CT-1-013-014-S32K 2 177. 11/19/82 Brown & Root Drawing - Mark 2

  1. AF-1-01-001-S338 178. 8/24/84 Cat. #8 As-Builts 1

179. 9/13/84 Paint Removal from Welds 1 180. 9/20 Handwritten Notes - Misc. I 181. 9/21/84 CPSES TRT Telephone 1 Memorandum Between Rick Carlson & W. C. Wells 11 I

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 182. 9/21/84 Handwritten Listing of Hanger 4 Numbers 183. 10/4/84 Sumary TRT - QA/QC Cate. #8 3 As-Built Field Review of Pipe Supports 184. 10/4/84 Sumary TRT - QA/QC Cate. #8 3 As-Built Field Review of Pipe Supports 185. 10/4/84 Sumary TRT - QA/QC Cate. #8 2 AS-Built Field Review of Pipe Supports 186. 10/4/84 QA/QC As-Built Group Review 4 of Pipe Supports 187. 10/10/84 Electrical CTH & C Hangers & Supports 188. 10/11/84 Electrical CTH & C Hangers 8 189. No date CTH otes & drawings 2 190. No date Handwritten notes of Inspection 1 191. No date Sequence of Events for TRT 2 As-Built Group j 192. No date As-Built Review 2 193. No date Inspection List QA/QC 1 194. No date In Progress Sumary 5 I 195. No date Supports Subject to Repairs 1 j 196. No date Safeguards Building - System AF 5 197 No date QA/QC As-Built Group Review 1 of Pipe Supports 198. No date QA/QC As-Built Group Review 1 i of Pipe Supports 199. 9/17/84 SSER - Draft 2, CP3-AB-4, 5, 6, 18 8, 9, 10, 14, ABQ-1, 2 200,9/19/84 SSER AP-4/CP2 23 12

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 201. 10/22/64 SSER Category 5 - AW-44/CP3 4 202. 10/23/84 US NRC Memo to D. Eisenhut from 28 Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Comanche Peak Action Items AN0 8601170254 203. 10/24/84 SSER - Draft 3 - AP-6 CP5 8 204. 10/26/84 SSER - Draft 6 - CP2 AW-68 4 SRT-8 205. 10/26/84 SSER DCP3 Draft 5 Mechanical 2 and Pipir.g Cat. 6 1 i 206. 10/28/84 SSER Draft 5 CP4 AW-39, 50, 58 57, 64, 53 APQ-22 207. 10/29/84 SSR CP2 AW-48 6 208. 10/30/84 SSER Draft 6 AB-12 CP4 13 209. 10/30/84 SSER Draft 7 AW-56, A0W-24 17 CPSES Issues 210. 11/1/84 SSER Draft 6 AB-11 CP2 3 211, 11/1/84 SSER Draft 8 DCP2 AW-31 13 213. 11/2/84 SSER Draft 4 A0W-75 CP2A 6 214. 11/2/84 SSER DCP5 AM-11 13 215. 11/2/84 SSER AQP-23 CPS 14 216, 11/3/84 SSER CP4 - AH-4 AH-21 11 217. 11/3/84 SSER Draft 5 DCP4 AP-11 4 218. 11/3/84 SSER DCP4-Mech Piping Cat. 23 5 219, 11/3/84 SSER Draft 5 DCP4 AW-52 AW-59 8 AW-62 220. 11/3/84 SSER Draft 3 CPS A0W-9, A0W-8, 9 AQW-79 221, 11/5/84 SSER Draft 3 CP5 A AQP-2 10 222. 11/5/84 SSER Draft 4 DCP6 AM-29 6 l 13

~ Re: F0IA-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 223. 11/5/84 SSER Draft 3, DCP5 AP-7, 10 AP-15, AP-16 224. 11/6/84 SSER DCP5 AW-43, 60, 65, 73, 18 AQW-77 Draft 5 1 225. 11/6/84 SSER DCP5 AW-49, 51, 55 Draft 4 15 226. 11/6/84 SSER DCP2A AW-63, Drft 8 4 227. 11/7/84 SSER CP5 SRT-1, SRT-2, SRT-3, 6 Draft 5 228. 11/7/84 SSER CP4 AP-5, AP-8, AP-10 7 Draft 6 229. 11/7/84 SSER DCP-7, Task AV-5 Draft 6 5 i 230. 11/8/84 SSER Draft 5 CPSA AP-12, AQ-32, 10 AQW-33 1 231. 11/8/84 SSER DCP2, AQW-67, 25, 29, 67, 72 7 Draft 4 232. 11/8/84 SSER DCP2 SSER Allegation 30 6 Draft 4 233. 11/9/84 SSERDraft3(CP2)AP-26,AP-27 7 234. 11/9/84 SSER Draft 4 AP-24, AP-25/CP2 8 235. 11/9/84 SSER DCP4 AQP-3 Draft 3 3 236. 11/9/84 SSER Draft 6 AH-8 Intimidation / 3 CP2 237. 11/9/84 US NRC Memo to Darrell Eisenhut 31 from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Comanche Peak Action Items - Update 238. 11/9/84 SSER Draft 4 AQW-7, CP5 5 239. 11/13/84 SSER CP3 Allegation A0W-1, 12 Draf t 6 240. 11/14/84 SSER DCP4 AH-3-7, ADW-71 14 Draft 4 14

l s Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 241. 11/15/84 SSER AQW-5 CP3 - Draft 5 6 242. 11/15/84 SSER Draft 6, AH-6, etc./CP3 14 243. 11/16/84 SSER DCP2A Allegation AH-5, 8 Draft 4 244, 11/16/84 SSER DCP5 Draft 3, SRT-4, 8 SRT-6 245. 11/16/84 SSER AQW-74, DCP2 4 246. 11/19/84 SSER DCP2 AW-34, 35, 38 10 Draft 6 247, 11/27/84 SSER CP8C - Hubbard Draft 5 24 248, 12/5/84 US NRC Memo to Darrell Eisenhut 32 from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Comanche Peak Action Items - Schedule Update 249. No date No title - SSER 76 250. No date No title - Partial 2 251. 09/24/84 Notes - Robert Harbour 1 252. 10/23/84 US NRC Memo to Darrell Eisenhut 17 thru Vince Noonan from R. C. Tang

Subject:

NRR Procedure / Guidance i for Conducting Close-out Interviews with Allegers Regarding CPSES 253. 01/03/84 SSER AQP-1, AQH-2, AQP-17 CP4 2 l Draft 4 254. 11/06/84 Memo for Darrell Eisenhut 62 from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

) NRR/TRT Procedure for Conducting i Closeout Interviews with A11egers Regarding Comanche Peak r 15

Re: F01A-85-59 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pages 255, 11/21/84 TUGC0 Letter to Darrell Eisenhut 32 from Michael Spence

Subject:

Program - Plan and Issue Specific Action Plans - Revision 1 256, 11/23/84 US NRC Memo for Comanche Peak 4 Technical Review Team Group Leaders from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Finalizing SSERs for Publication 257. 1/14/85 US NRC Memo for Darrell Eisenhut 2 from Vince Noonan,

Subject:

Comanche Peak Staffing 16

m {,- ,s\\ GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 4555 Conndcricut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington. D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 G:85:104 January 21, 1985 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, REQUESI $ k'Y Q Director Office of Administration M h/g-g Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 5 552, the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") requests copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, sumaries, interview re-ports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, agreements handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages,, computations, voice recordings, computer runoffs, any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status re-ports, and any and all other records' relevant to and/or generated in connection with the overview, ragulation and investigation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant 4 by any person, branch, or department of the NRC since January 18, 1985 ~ This request includes all agency records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 9.3a(b) ar d the NRC Manual Appendix 0211 Parts 1.A.2 and A.3 (approved October 8,1980)i whether they currently exist in the NRC official, " working," investi other files, or at any other location, including private residences,gative or if any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, supra, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the . action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to ' implement the action (s). GAP requests that fees be daived, because " finding the information can be con-sidered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 5 552(a)(4)(a). GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. Through its Citizens Clinic, GAP of fers assistance to local public interest and citizens groups seeking to ensure the health and safety of their communities. The Citizens Clinic is currently assisting several citizens groups, local governments and intervenors in the central Texas area concerning the construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear pcwer plant. -9EASAW7-a pp. m

l e Director Office of Administration Page Two We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants. For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific F0IA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed jusitfication of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant i to the document or portion of the document. withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). We look forward to your response to this request within ten days. j Sincerely, ib Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director t a D e l F

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticur Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 October 28, 1984 Vincent Noonan Director Technical Review Team U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: CASE's Brief in Opposition to TUGCO's Request for Non-Disclosure of Relevant Lipinsky Documents and Request for OI Investigation

Dear Mr. Noonan:

Enclosed is a copy of the Government Accountability letter dated today to Mr. Ben Hayes, Director of the Office of In-vestigations (OI) requesting an investigation into the actions of TUGCo in suppressing and substantially modifying the opinions of,Mr. J. Lipinsky about the paint coatings quality assurance,' quality control program at Comanche Peak. I have also enclosed a copy c~ he brief and attachments for your information. (I have

the letter to Mr. Hayes to the service list, but I h tot docketed this memorandum.)

Sincerely, b va ' Billie Pirner Garde e Citizens Clinic Director Enclosures -SG13rd6% lp. F01A-85-59 /n i

~ O a I GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 j Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232 6550 October 29, 1984 -{ RAND DELIVERED Mr. Ben Hayes Director Office of Investigations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comanche Peak

Dear Mr. Hayes:

i ) Within the past week, remarkable evidence has been disclosed i the Comanche Peak licensing proceedings from the O. B n Company. investigation.This evidence necessitates our request for an OI . Cannon Texas Utilities Generating CompanyAs you know, O. B. Can get its paint coatings program on co(TUGCo) in 1983 to help TUGCo urse. Lipinsky, whose sharp criticisms of the program ha

7. JStamming from that

] several NRC, IE, OI and NRR inspections and investigations j As you are also aware, in the context.of those investigati Lipinsky entirely recants h ons, Mr. protective coatings program.is previdus criticisms of the plant's explained until now. Lipinsky's 1800 turn has been un-TUGCo officials to influence Mr. Lipinsky through c c ons by Peak to the NRC investit atorssure or some other measures to chang n, pres-whether that investigation s / inspectors. It is still unclear J visors as target or sources.hould include Mr. Lipinsky's super-Attached to this letter.is a brief filed by the interven zens Association for sound Energy or citi-which some of the evidence of cover (up an)d coercion are summ CASE through its counsel in The brief itself is not' intended to de disclosed through the hearing process. tail the evidence recently will itself provide the best demonstration of the actions and thA re l efforts by TUGCo to prevent the various officials from the O Cannon company to testify honestly to the Nuclear Regul t e .B. i mission about the nature of the problems discovered in the pain 5 a ory Com ~ coatings department. l F0lA-85-59 ~ mm. g.. C'"*

  • _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' " ~ ~

a Mr. Ben Hayes October 29, 1984 Page Two A Government Accountability representative will be glad to meet Y with any o^f your Washington agents to inform them of the specific nature of the evidence developed to date in the licensing pro-ceedings on this issue, and to also provide them with the names of other personnel who we believe have further evidence regarding this matter. Sincerely, \\ ouis Clark

  • Director 2

LCamk Attachments to serv /o attachments copy w ice List I e 'l I y

e guag g%, <,4 UNITED STATES E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {g. o j"e wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555 \\+,,'5Af e...e NOV 5 @ MEMORANDUM FOR: See Attached List FROM: Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director ( WW Comanche Peak Technical Review Team

SUBJECT:

TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS FOR INFORMATION 7 L Enclosed f' r your review and information are the following documents: o VV)t.y9 1. 1. Case Brief in Opposition to Applicant Request For Non-Disclosure Of Relevant Lipinsky Documents, dated October 26, 1984. g,,...g.; 2. Letter to H. R. Denton (NRC) from B. P. Garde (GAP), dated .I g/ October 26, 1984. 3. Letter to V. Noonan (NRC) from B. P. Garde (GAP), dated f'. October 28, 1984. _-v,. 4. Letter to B. Hayes (NRC) from L. Clark (GAP), dated October 28, 1984. Copies of these documents are being placed in the Public Document Room Comanche Peak Unit I and Unit 2, Docket Numbers 50-445 -446. / 12 Project Director anche Pe Tec nical Review Team F0lA-85-59 F h, 4411J.4 L53.- GPP. ,gggg -e'

t Addresse List E. Case J. McKnight (PDR) R.C. Tang R. Wessman A. Vietti J. Gagliardo R. DeYoung B. Martin Region IV D. Hunter, Region.IV C. McCracken Team Leaders J. Calvo L. Shao s P. Matthews R. Keimig H. Livermore t )

o Octooer 26, 1984 i UN'ITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In tne Matter of ') ) TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 COMPANY, et al. ) and 50-446-2 ) (Comancne Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CASE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT REQUEST FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT LIPINSKY DOCUMENTS In a letter to tne Licensing Board dated Octooer 18, 1984, Applicant refused to provide the parties with relevant documents regarding 0.B. Cannon and J.J. L ip 1*ns ky, asserting tnat those documents were privileged oecause prepared in anticipation of I 3 litiga t io n. (See letter to the Board, Octooer 18, 1984) CASE opposes une assertion of privilege and requests tnat the Board order production of all of the witnneld documents. l CASE and Applicant agree that if the materials sought represent attorney-work product then the standard to apply in deciding whether to produce them ist A party may ootain discovery of documents and tangiole things otherwise discoveraole under paragraph (o)(1) of this section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing oy or for anotner party's representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery nas sunstantial need of the materials in the preparation of this sus-n,. F0lA-85-Sg 4

_ 2-case and tnat ne is unaole without undue nardsnip to ootain tne sunstantial equivalent of the materials oy other means. In ordering discovery ~of sucn materials when the required snowing nas oeen made, the presiding of ficer snail protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 52.740(o)(2). Ac the outset it is crucial to' place the information oeing withneld into tne context of the issue involved. Tne Assue is whetner, as the result of pressure orought to oear oy Applicant or tes counsel on Mr. L1pinsky and/or 0.B. Cannon, Mr. L1pinsky modified nio previously nela opinions regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings, and QA/QC related to it, at CPSES. A part of that issue is whetner Mr. L1pinsky had what ne had indicated and oelieved was a re11aole casts for chang tng his opinion. What is no t a t issue at this point is the adequecy of tne paint coatings progrsm as suen, an issue to oe fully explored in tne otner pnase of tne nearings. (It was apparently in preparation for the i former issue that Mr. L1pinsky was preparing testimony.) e In summary, CASE celieves that Mr. L1pinsky was pressured, i coerced, or influenced into recanting and changing the conclusions that ne originally reached aoout coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak. In his original report of August 8, 1983 aoout his trip to Comanche Peak on July 26-28, 1983, Mr. L1pinsky expressed a nunner of serious concerns aoout tne adequacy of pne contings quality control program at Comanche Peak. Nonetheless, over time Mr. L1pinsky recanted those concerns, ultimately culminating in an af fidavit filed with the Board on Septemoer 28, 1984. CASE oe11 eves that numerous f actors

. point to' tne very real possiollity enat Mr. L1pinsky was improperly pressured or influenced into changing nis conclusions aoout quality control at Comanche Peak, and indeed may have oeen coerced into par ticipating in a " cover-up" of serious quality Concerns. Because CASE nas a suostantial need of any evidence of pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant the concerns that he expressed in nis August 8, 1983 trip report and oecause any evidence of sucn pressure is clearly relevant to-these narassment and intimidation proceedings, Applicant should De compelled to produce all of the relevant documents wnich it has until now w itnneld. Tne witnneld information apparently contains draf t testimony proposed oy Applicant's counsel representing what they wanted Mr. L1pinsky to testify to regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings at CPSES; tne information also apparently contains M r. L1pinsky's reaction to tnat proposed testimony. Meeting l notes and letters apparently further. memorialize the exchanges oetween Mr. L1pinsky and the Applicant's counsel on exactly what Mr. Lipinsky would and would not say. Tnus the witnheid j information will likely provide important evidence of any actual attempt to pressure Mr. L1pinsky and of any evolution of his testimony or views thereoy potentially proving that such pressure nad Deen orougnt to oear. A nunoer of f actors point very strongly to the likelihood I I .cnat Mr. L1pinskyi was pressured, coerced or influenced into J changing his appraisal of the coatings rpogram at Comanche Peak. ) First, Mr. L1pinsky never undertook any audit of Comanche Peak i \\

-4 - suosequent to tne July, 1983 trip on whlen ne cased nts initial trip report. At least as ' late as four months af ter that initial trip, Mr. L1pinsky noted in nas " diary" (produced in discovery oy O.B. ' Cannon) on Novemoer 17, 1983, tnat any full audit of coatings at Comanene Peak "would or might confirm JJL's concerns". The only "da ta" that Mr. L1pinsky received on the quality control program at Comanene Peak suosequent to his initial visit was tne information ne received during.the Novemoer 10-11 meetings witn Ron Tolson, Jonn Merritt and others (meetings wnicn took place prior to the Novemoer 17 diary entry cited aoove, and in wnlen L1pinsky indicated that his concerns might ce confirmed oy a full audit). Nonetneless, oy the time he met witu NRC inspector Hawkins in January,1984, and certainly oy tne time of his Septemoer, 1984 affidavit, Mr. Lipinsky, without the oenefit of any new info r ma tion, nad reached radically different ~ conclusions aoout tne quality of the coatings program at Comanche' Peak. Furtner evidence that Mr. L1pinsky was improperly pressured into changing tne conclusions that he had reached in his August 8 trip report can De found in numerous other entries in Mr. L1pinsky's diary. On a nunoer of occasions af ter the Novemoer 10-11 meetings (in which his initial report was " discussed

  • oy Tolson, Merritt and others), L1pinsky made entries in his diary which indicate that an attempt was oeing made to cover-up the concerns voiced in the August 8 trip report.

For example, Mr. L1pinsky was clearly concerned that he might ce pressured into perjuring himself: on Novenner 14-15 he wrote at least three

. times tnat ne would not commit perjury, and felt the need to express that feeling to horris, Roth, and Trallo. On Novemoer 17, Mr. L1pincky wrote that O.B. Cannon President Rotn was demanding that ne sign a changed version of his original trip { r epo r t; L1pinsky did not. In refusing to sign tne modified report, L1pinsky expressed a concern that "the more JJN/RBR [Norris/Rotn] talk to the utility or try to cover-up, the deeper OBC gets -- OBC could nave serious proolems if federal agencies, perceive OBC committing f raud." (See L1pinsky 11/17 diary entry; received f rom Applicant in discovery) (Emphasis added) L1pinsky furtner wrote on Novemoer 17 that: JJL pointed out [to Rotn] that JJL nas proolem in signing a enanged trip report (may ue enougne of as fraud). RBR (Rotn) oecame flush and said that was no t fraud, out final copy of memo / trip report, and JJL was to sign the changed trip report and place a copy in the olue three ring oinder today. JJL said "yes sir" out did not sign the enanged trip report. JJL draf ted a memo from RBR for RBR signature (telling JJL to sign tne enanged trip repoic), if RBR fo rces JJL to sign the changed trip report. L1pinsky was clearly feeling pressure to cover up and ignore nis concerns. Tne pressure ne felt was so intense that ne felt the need to protect nimself Dy draf ting a letter in Roth's name detailing that ne nad oeen forced to alter the report and to sign the cnanged copy against his will. CASE has no way of knowing to a certainty wny Rotn was pressuring L1pinsky -- i.e., CASE canno t ce certain that Rotn was nisself Deing pressured oy the Applicant or their counsel. Clearly, otner correspondence netween L1pinsky, O.B. Cannon, the Applicant and their counsel, and any draf t testimony prepared during this period for Lipinsky will sned 11gnt on the degree to which L1pinsky was pressured and

. coerced 'into ultimately completely recanting tne very real concerns that ne strongly Eelt af ter the Novemoer 10-11 meetings at Comanene Peak. Mr. L1pinsky's diary contains numerous other ind ica tio ns j tnat ene recantation of nis concerns was not co mple tely voluntary, indications that will almost certainly De further evidenced if the documents tnat Applicant has refused to produce are in f act produced. For instance, in notes on nis Novemoer 22 meeting witn TUGCO attorney Nicholas Reynolds, L1pinsky wrote: "JJL [L1pinsky] asked attorney (NSR) whose side they represented. Indications are that OBC [ Cannon] is not getting all info." The next day, L1pinsky wrote enac ne pointed out to Trallo "that 2 ou t of 2 meetings were no t vnat JJL nad oeen led to Delieve -- what is going on, someone is not aoove coard." These diary entries oy L1pinsky are compelling evidence that the concerns that ne voiced in his August 8 trip report were recanted oecause ~ ne f elt coerced or was in some other way influenced to change his po s itio n. (See Exhioit 1) Additional evidence tnat L1pinsky was pressured into changing nis story aoout the adequacy of coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak lies in the f act that at the Novemoer 10-11 meetings at Comanche Peak, of ficiated oy John Merritt and attended oy Tolson, Lipinsky, Trallo, Norris and four others (see CHI Exniott 4 of CASE's Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact), Lipinsky said almost nothing. At that meeting, Tolson, ) Merrit and sometimes otners characterized Lipinsky's concerns and j purported to " address" them, out L1pinsky himself apparently did ) i v

w-.

-w.,- -.---er g--yw< e -,eg

\\ - i . not f eel comfortaole enougn nimself to say much of anything. By i eitner nis own admission or the recognition of someone else at the meeting (contained in notes appended to tne diary produced oy O.B. Canno n in discovery), there was a " lack of JJL talking on tape" (of tne Novemoer 10-11 meeting). Those meetings could nardly nave convinced L1pinsky that his concerns aoout coatings and quality control at Comanene Peak were unfounded. Tne likelihood that L1pinsky was coerced into participating in a " cover-up" of his concerns is lent additional, support oy the fact enat O.B. Cannon President Roth was extremely sympatnetic to ene concerns of TUGCO and even nostile to tne concerns voiced oy L1pinsky. This " motive" for Rotn to cover-up is evidenced not only oy the diary entries cited aoove, out also oy Rotn's own categorization of Cannon's concerns. In a Novemoer 3, 1983 meeting with Joe George, Dave Chapman, John Merritt, Billy Clements, Tony Vega, J.J. Norris and nimself, Roth apolog ized again for tne lack of security at OBC, in that an in house memo ' leaked out' and nad caused our client such consternation and new additional exposure to -intervenors" (from Roth memo to file, dated 11/4/83, Exnio it 2). In a Novemoer 28, 1983 letter to Nicholas Reynolds, Rotn wrote that " Cannon's posture is to j support TUGCO/TUSI witn whatever oojective and honest ef fort we can render". When these professions of support for and apology j to "their client" are ' viewed in the lignt of the intense pressure 3 applied oy Rotn to L1pinsky to sign an altered version of his trip report, the clear inference artses that the O.B. Cannon president, the Applicant, and/or their attorneys may have Deen seeking to paper over and cover up L1pinsky's concerns. e ,m,- -o-, --,----,m ~w -u.-e ,e----g y--

Finally, support for Ene argument that L1pinsky was pressured into retracting his initial concerns is found in the - repeated insistence oy ootn Lipinsky and Trallo that the concerns raised in the August 8 trip report would only oe either allayed or conformed if a full audit of the plant were undertaken. For example, Trallo wrote in nis NovemDer 28, 1983 trip report that "Comanene Peak Site Management adequately detailed the program and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in tne "Lipinsky Memo". (See Exnibit 4) Cannon has no cas ts to confirm that enese programs and controls are in place and are oeing ef fectively implemented. Confir mation could only oe provided oy a detailed audit." Similarly, Lipinsky wrote in nis diary on Novemoer 17 that only an audit, which would require four to five weeks could confirm or allay his initial concerns. (See also tne Octooer 28, 1983 L1pinsky letter, Exntoit 3) l No ne thele ss, oy the time ne met with NRC inspector Hawkins in January, 1984, L1pinsky was mucn less concerned with tne adequacy of coatings at Comanche Peak than ne had Deen only a month earlier. (CASE is also concerned aoout tne poss1 Die inferences arising from the awarding tc L1pinsky of a raise only one and one-nalf weeks oefore his crucial meeting with Hawkins (see Lipinsky's December 23, 1983 diary entry), especially when viewed in ene lig'nt of Lipinsky's fear for his joo only six weeks earlier. (See Lipinsky's NovemDer 14 diary entry) Based on the documents that CASE has received thus far through discovery in these proceedings, there is simply no adequate explanation for Lipinsky's 180 degree aoout-f ace with ,,,_y e-w

1 ' regard to his feelings aoout tne adequacy of coatings and related quality control at. Comanche Peak. It seems incrediole that L1pinsky simply accepted the explanations given oy Tolson at the ~ Novemoer 10-11 meetings and cy Brandt in nis testimony. On the contrary, suostantial evidence exists which gives rise to the l Inference tnat L1pinsky recanted his August 8, 1983 conclusions eitner occause of pressure applied to nim to cover up or some other reason unexplained and unimaginaole. As detailed oelow, a suostantiated oelief in ene likelinood of a cover-up provides a suf ficient snowing of necessity to require production of documents tnat signt otnerwise De undiscoveraole under 10 C.F.R 52.740(o)(2) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(o)(3). 10 C.F.R. 52.740(o)(2), adapted f rom Rule 26(o)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows discovery of trial preparation materials upon a snowing oy the party seeking discovery of "suostantial need of the materials in the preparation of nis case and tnat ne is unaole without undue nardship to ootain the suostantial equivalent of the material oy otner means." Tne allegat4ons detailed and suostantiated aoove and in Exnioits 1-5 satisfy tne requirements of tnis standard: Applicant should therefore De compelled to produce all of the relevant L1pinsky documents. As a preliminary matter, CASE notes that no time need De spent on the " undue nardsnip" prong of tr.1s standard: CASE ooviously cannot nope to ootain the. suostantial equivalent of the ) materials witaneld nere oy otner means. The contemporaneous notes and written draf ts of positions taken oy or proposed to Mr.

5 . L1pinsky are the uniquely. superior evidence of wnat tr.anspired -- possiole pressure, co e rc io n, cover-up -- and no similarly rellaole evidence exists anywhere else, CAS E's need for the witnheld L1pinsky documents is apparent. If Mr. Lipinsky recanted nis initial concerns aoout quality at Comanene Peak only oecause ne was pressured into doing so, and only as part of a larger attempt to cover up the quality control proolems at Comanche Peak, tnen his initial concerns.still stand. Indeed, those concerns cast serious douot over the. adequacy of Comanche Peak's coatings program.1/ Claims of necessity very similar to CASE's claim in this motion nave oeen recognized oy 'the Federal courts as a suf ficitnt snowing of necessity to justify production of otherwise undiscoveraole work-product documents. In In Re Grand Jury \\ Suopoena Dated Novemoer 9, 1979, 484 F.Supp. 1099 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), the district court ordered defendant's lawyers to produce witnneld documents wnicn the Government (the party seeking discovery) alleged would provide evidence of a cover-up. Tne court characterized tne Government's claim of necessity as compelling, stating that an assertion that documents caught will provide evidence of a coher-up is an even stronger claim.of 1/ Tnis issue is not moot if, in reality, the sought af ter documents contain evidence of attempts (regardless of their. success) Dy TUCGO QA management to cover up the seriousness' of Lipinsky's initial concerns. On October 19, 1984 Applicant' . suomitted to the NRC its Program Plan responding to the findings of the NRC's Techjiical Review Team (TRT). Mr. Ron Tolson, the very individual descrioed by several witnesses in this proceeding as the cause of the QA deficiencies in coatings, was named as Project Leader for the resolution of all coatings proolens. (See Exnlott 5) l m e v'"d v'

- necessity than other claims routinely accepted oy courts. 484 F.Supp. at 1103. (Tne court in In Re Grand Jury applied the standard of Rule 26(o)(3) even enougn the case oefore it involved a grand jury case, not a civil suit. 484 F.Supp. at 1102) Tne courts in Dotn In Re Grand Jury Suopoena Dated Novemoer 9, 1979, 484 F.Supp. 1099, 1105 (S*.D.N.Y. 1980) and I_n Re Grand Jury Inve s t iga tio n, 599 F.2d 1224, 1232 (3d Cir. 1979) recognized tnat a mere naked assertion of a cover-up does not co,nstitute a sufficient snowing of necessity to warrant ordering discovery of work product. However, in tnis proceeding, as in In Re Grand Jury S uo po e na, 484 F.Supp. at 1105, a suostantiated claim of a suspected cover-up nas oeen alleged. Tne requirement of suostantiation means only enat ene party making the assertion of cov'er-up suostantiate its oelief -- tne party needn't prove its allegatio ns in order to compel discovery. 484 F.Supp. at 1105. nas offered a quantum of evidence suostantiating allegations CASE of a cover-up. Attacned to this orief are the Octooer 31, 1983 memo in whicn Mr. L1pinsky reconiirmed nis initial concerns; a Novemoer 28 memo in wnlen Mr. Tra tlo empnasized that none of tne concerns raised in ene August 8, 1983 trip report could De completely put to rest unless a full audit was done (and none ever was cone); and numerous excerpts f rom Lipinsky's diary which ~ Indicate that ne was pressured into recanting his testimony and may nave oeen forced to participate in a cover-up of the concerns raised in the initial repor t. Further, the record in these proceedings contains tne August 8 trip report, a transcript of the Novemoer 10-11 meetings, the January " interview of L1pinsky oy Hawkins, and the Septemoer 28, 1984 affidavit of Lipinsky.

However, in view of tne fact that L1pinsky ultimately recanted nis initial concerns witnout ever performing a suosequent audit at Comanene Peak, tne record completely lacks any legitimate reason for L1pinsky's shif t. Indeed, the gaping lack of a legitimate explanation for Lipinsky's shif t lends fur tner support for the argument enat L1pinsky was pressured or coerced into recanting and covering up. Finally, CASE does not concede that the documents withheld oy Applicant are eitner privileged or contain attorney work s product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Indeed, without seeing enose documents, CASE cannot ce sure what they contain. There is suostantial evidence that tne drafts of testimony and otner documents likely contain proof of improper pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant nis story; evidence of this improper pressure is not " privileged attorney work product."2/ Even if the Board does find that the documents do contain ~ privileged work product, CASE nas demonstrated its suostantial need for those documents. Lastly, if the Board is reluctant to 2/ Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, 16 N.R.C. 897, 917 (1982), cited oy Applicant as j us tif icatio n f@c witaaolding the relevant L1pinsky documents does not control this case. First, Consumers dealt with the possiole discover-aoility of ordinary draf ts of testimony. However, the L1pinsky draf ts were very unlike the typical draf t testimony case. Here the focus is on the possioility that those draf ts will point to pressure and coercion of Mr. L1pinsky to change his original J story. The documents sougnt are sought precisely to show that the ultimate testimony was coerced and thus unreliaole, not to prooe attorney thought processes. Second, though Consumers addressed the possioility that draf ts of testimony might De privileged f rom discovery, it did not reach the merits of that ques tio n. Tne Board in Consumers decided only tha't counsel who asserted the privilege could not ce censured for making that asse r tio n, it did not decide whether tne draf ts were in fact privileged.

c. allow CASE to view tne documents in tnelr entirety witnout first l

ascertaining their contents, CASE urges the Board to view those documents in camera to determine whetner tney contain evidence of 4 pressure and cover-up. If they do, then Applicant snould oe denied its assertion of privilege. For all of tne aoove reasons, CASE requests that the Board order production of all of tne witaneld documents. i Respectfully suomitted; l r. I S AI sh b r ?d Ib-ANTHONY ZD ROISMAN M. -- Trial Lawyers for Puolic Justice 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsei for CASE Y 'A s

l ) s r-GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 1 October 26, 1984 3 Mr. Harold R. Denton l Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .l Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Darrell Eisenhut Director Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Nos. 50-445 and 50-446) Texas Utilities Generating Company Program Plan, October 8, 1984

Dear Mr. Denton and Mr. Eisenhut:

This letter serves as preliminary comments, analysis and recommen-dations of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) regarding the adequacy of design, construction and operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) and the compliance of CPSES with federal regulations and industry standards. It is clear to us, and we believe should be to the NRC and the public, that the Comanche Peak plant is the victim of a comprehen-sive quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) breakdown. Since the scope of the Technical Review Team (TRT) is limited, it is understandable why Texas Utilities Generating Company's (TUGCo) response is equally narrow. Such an approach is extremely imprudent by both the agency and applicant, at this juncture. Based on our review of the October 8, 1984, proposal by TUGCo or applicant, we make the following recommendations. 1. Reject the October 8, 1984, proposal (Revision O) as submitted. 2. Require TUGCo to hire an independent contractor to develop and implement any subsequently approved re-inspection or corrective action proposal.

    • = w.

F01A-85-59 m_ +3

Mr. Harold R. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page.Two 3. Require TUGCo's response to include a " vertical slice" 17 re-inspection program of at least three safety systems.- 4. Expan!d the NRC's TRT's efforts to include those expanded items in Section II of this letter, including a total in-spection and documentation review of either one major safety system or one separate area of the plant (similar to the major Diesel Generator Building inspection at the Midland nuclear power plant in October, 1982). 5. Expand the official agency review of the adequacy of TUGCo's response effort to include a review by a panel of former employees. At this time, we remain skeptical of the plan being provided by TUGCo to allay legitimate NRC and public concerns about the safety of the CPSES project. I. BACKGROUND Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station is a two-unit power reactor under construction near Glen Rose, Texas. It is owned by a consor-tium of six utility companies. Texas Utilities Electric Company i (TUEC), through its subsidiary TUGCo, retai' s responsibility for n design, construction and operation. The plant has been plagued by a lengthy history of allegations of inadequate design, improper construction, and a flawed QC program. These allegations have come to the attention of the NRC primarily ) through the citizens intervenor organization; however, throughout the seven to eight years of construction, employees have independently contacted the NRC to report design and construction deficiencies. The project has undergone a. nun 6er of special NRC inspection efforts, as well as the regulatory program. The plant has not yet received an operating license. There are 3 currently two ongoing licensing dockets, both actively involved in hearings. j In March, 1984, GAP announced an independent investigation of CPSES. GAP filed an emergency request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 requesting an immediate stop work order, an independent audit of the project, and a major investigation by the Office of Investigations (OI). That request was subsequently granted in part and denied in part. 1!A similar request is pending in front of the Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) both in the technical contentions docket (Docket 1) and the harassment and intimidation docket (Docket 2).

Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Three On March 12, 1984, William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations (EDO) announced the reorganization of NRC resources for the Waterford III and CPSES projects. This reorganization was to coordinate all agency actions on these projects under one office-- the Office of the Director of the Division of Licensing. The stated purpose of this unusual organization was to resolve the remaining issues before the staff could make the licensing decision. The initial focus of this coordinated " task force" approach, used previously at Diablo Canyon, was to " expeditiously" resolve all existing and new issues "so as not to delay the licensing decisions." (March 12, 1984, Memorandum to John T. Collins, et al., from William J. Dircks, EDO, re: Completion of Outstanding Regulatory Actions on l Comanche Peak and Waterford.) In early April, a coordinated team of NRC management officials, inspectors and investigators arrived on the CPSES site to conduct a preliminary review of the adequacy of construction at the project. The report of this effort was issued July 13, 1984. On September 18, 1984, a second report was issued which high-lighted some of the issues which had been identified by the TRT in its inspection and review effort conducted during July and August, 1984. On October 8, 1984, TUGCo responded to the findings of the TRT by announcing the establishment of a Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and a complimentary response effort to the NRC's findings. On October 19, 1984, a meeting was held in Bethesda to discuss the TUGCo response to the TRT findings. (That meeting was completed at a second meeting on October 23.) i Additionally, on Ocr.ober 19, 1984,.the NRC staff submitted to the ASLB its projected schedule for completion of outstanding ASLB issues. Although the ASLB schedule outlines the schedule for the items necessary for resolution before the ASLB, it does not incor-porate all items requiring NRC review, inspection and resolution prior to licensing. (Those additional items, or a timetable for resolution, are not addressed in the staff submittal.) Following the release of the latest schedule, the original in-structions from Mr. Dircks, EDO, to his staff, that is, the expedi-l tious resolution of open issues to meet the utilities' timetable, seems inappropriate. Outlined below are what GAP and intervenor CASE believe to be a more prudent and regulatory-efficient approach. - = - w-y p9 y www w.- -._._.ey% ,,g9.py---7.-- -, ---y-.y,-w_,-,+-.m.-g.,. y.,,_%-.-,w, w99-- ,%,7p, .p_-% -w_,e, ,w

  • we-.y-w-s,,__,n-.

+ i Mr. Harold B. D;nton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Four II. PROPOSED NRC ACTIONS The following outline is submitted as a proposed modification I ~ to the ongoing TRT efforts: (see Attachment A) i 1. Expanded field inspection effort "Whole system" or " vertical slice" approach; a. b. As-built inspection with final design paper; i Audit of documentation to field to vault for c. in-process construction. 2. Incorporation of source review Appointment of allegations source response .a. coordinator; b. Field visits by allegation sources; Review panel for former employees. c. 3. Allegations recruiting program Establishment and promotion of information a. i " hot line;" b. Publication of a summary of unanswered questions to the workforce; Establishment of an NRC interview program; c. d. Structured " debriefing" program. j III. MODIFICATION IN THE CPSES RESPONSE TO THE TRT The current proposed Revision O of the Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plan (" Program Plan") has several fundamental flaws in its structure, scope and methodology. Essentially, we belle're that TUGCo needs to completely revamp the programmatic basis and philosophical approach upon which the Program Plan is based. These flaws are summarized below: No organization independence. Inherent conflict of interest of. personnel involved in the Senior Review Team, review team members, issue leaders, etc. ,p y e.,m,,,- --gn- ,,ww- .,,,___a,,, ,,,,_,-._m,w-,-,em

Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Five i Fundamentally inadequate program objectives and principles. Inadequate and unacceptable program processes and QA (methodology). Insufficient program record plans and tracking systems. ) 'l Overly-narrow and restricted scope. Because of the overall inadequacy and fundamental flaws of the TUGCo proposal, we do not think it is a prudent expansion of our efforts to provide a line-by-line analysis of this revision. We will, how-ever, delineate our principle objections and recommendations below. 1. Any analysis or re-inspections which are responsive to i the TRT's findings should be done by an independent contractor. This contractor should be chosen according to all of the criteria for independence. Those criteria are outlined j in a February 1, 1982, letter from Chairman Palladino i to Congressmen Dingell and Ottinger. The three elements necessary are:

a. ' Competence: " Competence must be based on knowledge of and experience with the matters under review."

b. Independence: " Independence means that the individ-uals or companies selected must be able to provide an objective, dispassionate technical judgment pro-i vided solely on the basis of technical merit. In-dependence also means that the design verification program must be conducted by companies or individ-uals not previously involved with the activities 1 they will now be reviewing." c. Integrity: "Their integrity must be such that they are regarded as respectable companies or individuals." I We have reviewed the independence criteria as it has been 4 applied by the NRC to the independent contractors at the Diablo Canyon, Midland and Zimmer nuclear power plants in preparation for this res-ponse. There is no question, given that criteria, that Ebasco, Inc.-- evidently selected by'TUGCo to perform the independent review--does not qualify to perform an independent auait or analysis of Comanche Peak problems under any of the three criteria. First, we do not find that Ebasco is competent. We draw the attention of the NRC to its own recent findings about the significant l ye i

- ~ Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 25, 1984 Page Six QA breakdown at the Waterford nuclear power plant. In the September, 1984, Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER No. 7), on page 15, the NRC made the following conclusion in the summary of a review of 350 allegations: 2. Quality Assurance activities during most of construction were principally delegated to the major contractor, EBASCO, by the utility. The lack of a fully staffed and effective utility QA program, along with EBASCO's - failure to fully carry out the QA responsi-bilities delegated to them, led to quality problems during construction. Documentation available to both GAP investigators and the NRC clearly indicates that Ebasco was willing--and in fact did--shortcut compliance of its work to federal regulations. We also understand that Ebasco is currently under investigation by OI for its activities at Waterford nuclear power plant. However, it is not necessary to leave Comanche Peak to make general assessments about Ebasco's lack of competence. Both TUGCo and the NRC are well aware of the lengthy trail of misjudgments made by Ebasco's lead employee on the Comanche Peak site. Perhaps the most notable incident currently in front of all parties is the liner plate mishap. (This incident is described-in detail in a CASE pleading, September 27, 1984, CASE's Evidence of a Quality Assurance Breakdown.) Mr. Thomas Brandt, senior Ebasco employee, has attempted since the issue came to the attention of the ASLB, to explain the basis for his personal conclusion that the stainless steel liner plates are installed in an indeterminate condition. This position by the senior Ebasco employee is evidence under both the integrity and competence section. It is indicative of the same type of sloppy attitude t' at has led the Waterford NRC team to reach its conclusions about Eba-3. Se- .d, Ebasco simply does not meet the independence standard. Ebasco p<rsonnel have been involved in every aspect of the construc-tion, inspection, litigation and re-evaluation of the Comanche Peak project. .Even if Ebasco brought in personnel who have had no previous invol@ement with the project, the company would not have any cor-porate independence. We hope that TUGCo has recognized that organizational inde-pendence is impossible for Ebasco to achieve. 7,

Mr. Harold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October'26, 1984 Page Seven Finally, the history of Comanche Peak's Department of Labor record and its Waterford evaluation are full of Ebasco's demon-strated lack of integrity. We draw the attention of the NRC once l again to the Secretary of Labor's finding that Thomas Brandt was not credible in his testimony about the termination of Charles i Atchison. (See the Secretary of Labor's Decision, Atchison v. l Brown & Root!" Tune 10 1983, pg. .) We hope that TUGCo has the foresight to voluntarily withdraw Ebasco as its nominee and rgsubmit a set of three nominees to the agency for their selection.3/ In choosing the companies to nominate for this independent re-view, we request th'at the utility be required to adhere to both the independence criteria (discussed above) and the following process recommendations: i 1. Do not " hire" any contractor until the NRC has the opportunity to review the nomination for compe-tence, integrity and independence. 2. Arrange for the public (intervenors, former employees, lay persons) to comment on the selection prior to entering into any contract. 3. l Be prepared to have the contract for the indepen-dent contractor publicly available. Our specific recommendations regarding the contract of the independent auditor are noted below: 1. The independent contractor should be responsible directly to the NRC, submitting all interim and final product simultaneously with TUGCo and the NRC. 2. The independent contractor should do a histori-cal assessment of TUGCo's prior work. 3. The contract should ensure that, once hired, TUGCo cannot dismiss the independent contractor from the project without prior notice to the NRC 1 /This process of nomin'ation, selection and a public meeting on the selection was used at Midland, Zimmer, Diablo Canyon and LaSalle (partial HVAC audit). 4 .I

\\ Mr. Htrold B. D nton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Eight and an NRC-sponsored public meeting to jus-tify the decision. 4. The contract should require that each auditor subcontract any services for which its direct personnel are not qualified. 5. The contract should require that the propcsed methodology be disclosed: specifically selec-3 tion criteria and size of the samples for. ) inspections and testing. ) 6. The contract should require the auditors to provide calculations demonstrating that it is possible to adequately complete its work during the proposed timeframe. 7. The contract should require the auditor to support its proposed methodology through i references to established professional codes 1 (i.e., ASIM, ASME, ANSI, AWS, etc. ). 3. The contract should require all auditors to report all safety-related information directly to the NRC. 9. The employees and auditors should demonstrate that the personnel assigned to the project are free from conflicts of interest. 10. The auditors must recommend corrective action, and then control its implementation. We are extremely alarmed that TUGCo has provided such sketchy details about the persons or organizations that will be performing the detailed review of the Comanche Peak deficiencies. We request that first the NRC delineate in writing to TUGCo i what it expects in a nomination of a third-party / independent re-j review to respond to the findings of the TRT (including instructions to TUGCo to not hire a contractor without NRC approval). l 2. Inherent conflict of interest of personnel involved in the Senior Review Team, review team members, j issue leaders, etc. i This item is, in actuality, dealt with through the independence section above. Hcwever, any analysis of the TUGCo Program Plan would l be incomplete without pointing out that the Plan, as submitted, 1 P

Mr. B3rold B. Denton 1 Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Nine contains as the Senior Review Team, issue leaders, and team members, the very people charged by the allegers with causing the problems in the first, place. This flaw is incredulous. In reality, the situation without modification, results in the following typical scenario: Inspector "A" identifies problems on the Comanche Peak site with System X to Supervisor "B." Supervisor "B" and Manager "C" prevent Inspector "A" from pursuing his concerns. Inspector "A," believing he has been harassed and intimidated, either quits or is fired and reports his concerns to the NRC TRT. The TRT substantiates Inspector "A's" concerns and requires TUGCo to respond to those concerns. TUGCo assigns Supervisor "B" and Manager "C" to resolve the concerns initially raised to them by the alleger. Obviously, the supervisor and management were neither capable nor willing to solve the problems in the first place. They are certainly even more incapable of now indicting their own previous decisions and lack of action. Any crediblh response must be done by an independent team. 3 (See Item 1 above.) 3. Fundamentally inadequate program objectives and i principles. The three sections of the Program Plan describe TUGCo's ob-jectives (SII) and principles (SIII). In SII, Program Plan Objectives, TUGCo states that it is "commited to the safe, reliable, and efficient design, construction and operation of CPSES...." We think this initial statement is illustrative. TUGCo is commited under the law to a code of federal regulations and industry standards. In the past, TUGCo has ignored the former commitment and embarked on an uncharted journey while ) paying lip service to the latter cournitment. No one questions the intent of TUGCo to ultimately safely l operate the Cemanche Pe53 project. That commitment, however, must be to the unique programs and processes which it agreed to through its FSAR commitments. The five objectives outlined in lII are-tha correct broad goals. Unfortunately, the Program Plan Project is not capable of. i ' fulfilling those objec*ives. 1 g., r ~ - .-,.,,,-,n-.,

Mr. Horold B. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Ten Section III, Program Plan Principles, uses ten basic elements for each question raised by the NRC. These are listed below, with the primary (law of each cr eegory beside it. 1. Specific Questions Is limited to only those identified by the NRC TRT. 2. Expanded Reviews Provides for expanded sample size which can erase the probles. 3. Generic Implications Only a " forward look"/ horizontal approach as opposed to assessment of systematic implications 4. Thorough Reviews Potentially a " Rube Gold-berg" search for an acceptable, instead of legitimate answer. 5. Root Cause Does not concede that breakdowns in the implemen-tation of the system inher-ently indicate a defective t system. 6. Corrective Action Lack of comprehensiveness. First, TUGCo should receive centralized and controlled j NRC approval for corrective action. 7. Collective Significance-A totally useless category in its present formt only potential use is internal management tool 8. Future Occurrences Must be controlled by inde-pendent auditing firm. 9. Personnel Training / All personnel doing any work Qualifications on this project must be in-dependently qualified for tasks, since the qualifica-tions of personnel involved, or the' procedures they were qualified to originally may have been totally inadequate,. e r~. I

Mr, Harold B. D0nton i Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Eleven 10. Records - Narrative format too com-plicated. Any data sub-mitted to the NRC must also be publicly available, not only "NRC auditable." 4. Inadequate and Unacceptable Program Processes and Quality Assurance (Methodology). Section IV, Program Process (pages 11 through 15) and Attach-ments 1-4 of SV, are the extent of the detailed knplementing pro-cedures offered by TUGCo. .i The abbreviated " bullets" of TUGCo's plan do not provide the level of detail necessary for the public (or the NRC) to have any confidence in the TUGCo Program Plan. We suggest that Section V be completely rewritten, utilizing a subcontractor with experience in development and implementation i of program processes. If TUGCo does bring in a consultant to re-develop this section, we would request permission to provide them comments on the reorganization prior to submission to the NRC. As a guideline, we include the following list of inadequacies: i 1. Program has no organizational independence. (See j pages 4 through 9). i 2. Program does not include any assumption or accep-tance of error as a serious possibility; in other words, 9.he approach is backwards. For example, a concern substantiated by the TRT and submitted to TUGCo for evaluation and resolution, should be approached from the " ground up." The response team (or independent reviewer) must first gather the appropriate standards and procedures used, review l and audit the processes followed by design and construction, iden-tify deficiencies in the craft and QA accomplishment of their l j tasks from a historical documentation perspective and, finnaly, l audit the as-built condition of the system or component against a i final design document. I Then, once the cause of the as-built deficiency has been identified, evaluated and tracked for similar discrepancies, the safety significance of the item can be separately evaluated. The reverse process--identification of the safety significance, has the very real potential of failing to diagnose a multitude of e f I ~ i

[ Mr. Harold D. Denton i Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October ^26, 1984 Page Twelve 4 generic causes necessary to 6nderstanding the QA/QC breakdown, 1: Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program e The QA/QC program for this effort should be a completely ~ ~ seperate function. Their program and, procedures should be submitted to the NRC prior to the start of any program. Currently the QA ef-fort for theirtrasponse is to come from the existing QA program. 2_ If that were actually implemented Mr. Antonio Vega would not only wear the hat of.the Senior Review Team in which he is going to audit and review his own work as both a team leader and an issue leader, he will also head up the QA effort to audit his own work while wearing the other three hats. 5. Insufficient Program Record Plans and Tracking Systems All audit records should be disclosed simultaneously to the public, the ASLB and the utility company. These records should include any and all basis--including calculations and judgments which the TRT was given by TUGCo, as well.as all data described in the " Project Working Files Section." inee pg. 13) More specifically, the record format described in Attach-ment 2 and 3 should be revised from a narrative form to a one page (with continuations,if necessary) form. (We have found that the format used by the TERA Corporation for the Midland IDVCP project was particularly useful and flexible.} The narrative approach is simply too subjective, very dif-ficult to work with, and unreliable. As currently proposed lalmost each line item of the Action Plan Format includes an interjection of opinion, conjecture and., ultimately, inaccuracies. Program Process Steps to the implementing steps is in chronological order. Our own analysis of the Comanche Peak problems lead us to believe that change in the order of tasks is more sensible. We propose that Step Eight, Identification of Root Cause and Potentia 1 Generic Implications, follow Step Four. Further, we propose that additional steps to review as-built verses final de- ~ sign be included after Step Eight. We resist the Motion that any rework or corrective action can be taken by TUGCO or any of its contractors prior to any reso4 lution of, the concerns itself being approved by the NRC. e g a. 7.

Mr. Enrold D. D nton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Thirteen Finally, we strongly object to the TUGoo plans to not - forward the new information to the NRC until after it is a.com. plated work project. 8 6. Overly Narrow and Restricted Scope Due to schedule constraints on intervenors who were required to submit several motions last week, as well as attend NRC meetings with the new TRT management and the late receipt of the TUGQ5 Program Plan, this letter will have to be supplemented as it pertains to this section. We anticipate submitting this item within the next two days under separate cover. VII. Conclusion The evidence of noncompliances, improprieties, QA breakdowns'mprudence and massive construction failures rep at dl misrepresentations, false statements, waste, corporate i e e y meets the general NRC and Region IV criteria for suspension of a construction permit or the denial of an operating license. In recent months Comanche Peak has been the subject of re-peated revelations and ac,cusations of construction flaws, coverups, and negligence. The evidence already on the record is indicative of a significant failure on the part of TUGCo to demonstrate respect for the nuclear power it hopes to generate, or the agency which reg-ulates its activities. TUGCo has taken repeated risks with its stockholders' in-vestments, its corporate credibility and its regulatory image. In each of these risks it has lost. It is too much to expect citizens to ac~spt TUGCo's arrogant disregard for the publics health and safetg. GAP recognizes the steps forward by the NRC--establishing a special team to review Comanche Peak's problems and the request for an independent audit, however, this must only be the beginning. TUGoo has numerous problems to worry about, and it is. clearly not in its own best interest to put the strictest sible construction on the regulations under which they have agreed pos-to build this nuclear facility. It is for just this reason that the nuclear industry is regulated, but even regulation, fines, extens~ive Public mistrust, and corporate embarrasment have not humbled Texas Utilities. If Comanche Peak is ever going to be a safe nuclear fa-cility, someone else is going to have to put their professional cred-ibility on the line. This independent auditor, paid by TUGCo, must be given strict guidelines for accountability and responsibility in order to justify its hard line recommendations. f e -p.

4 Mr. Harold R. Denton Mr. Darrell Eisenhut October 26, 1984 Page Fourtenn GAP hopes that both the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion and the Region IV office of the NRC will give serious consid-eration to GAP's concerns and recommendations set forth above,and implement a system whereby there is a truly independent system of auditing the extensive problems with the Comanche Peak plant. O Sincerely copy to service list \\ .= lie Pirner Garde - j Director, Citizens Clinic for / Accountable Government - -...--.~.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of }{}{ TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445-1 ^ COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446-1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{ Station, Units 1 and 2) }{ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Motions Regarding ANI Documents have been sent to the names listed below this 14th day of August.,198 4,* by: Express

  • Mail where indicated by
  • and First Class Mail elsewhere.
  • Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch
  • Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor & Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W. Washington, D.C. 20036

  • Ms. Ellen Ginsberg, Law Clark U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Office of Executive Legal Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Director i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

  • Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.

1 Architecture and Technology - Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

  • Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 F0lA-85-59 1 4

. f.. 4' ~ Chairman Renea Ricks, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. folk Dallas, Texas 75224 Nichael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies) Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l es. fu ~ futs.)JuanitaEllis, President. + CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 1 i I 2 e ,, y

e. ....;. 7.. ...y g 3 .z.... gg ; 3 ;.,3. 7;.3.g;;;....g _,.;;g;g.g.. .c (,2,., Q 'T"-

c..

E .eu s % ivyv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( g,,3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In 'he Matter of' i i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l Docket Nos. 50-445-1 COMPANY, et al. I and 50-446-1 1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i Station, Units' 1 and 2) { CASE'S MOTIONS RECARDING ANI DOCUMEhTS CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, files these Motions Regarding ANI Documents pursuant to the Board's ruling during the 7/26/84 telephone conference call (Tr. 13,855/24-13,857/10, 13,859/20-13,860). (See full discussion at,Tr. 13,845/6-13,860/16.) Although we still believe that these documents should have been provided by Applicants under existing discovery requests some time ago (see .g discussion at Tr. 13,850/23-13,854/22), the Board has already ruled in this regard. However, the fact, remains that we did not have these documents until we obtained them in the TUEC rate hearings, we do have them now (and are finally able to get them into the hands of the Board) and we believe l that the information contained in them is too important for the Board not to consider. CASE had hoped to be able to make this filing earlier; however, when we obtained a copy of the transcript of the conference call after it was received at the mini,public document to a and we had an opportunity to review the Board's comments, it became obvious'that information was required in addition to the very brief and somewhat skimpy summary we had already prepared. Therefore, we have done some very rough, brief, trending in an F01A-85-59 1 1 l

-s s. s., .s. ~ attempt to give the Board a more accurate picture of why CASE believes the ANI documents are so important. This information is contained in attachments organized by general subject matter. It should be remembered that th in and of themselves, (although important) represent only a part of the overall picture of the design and construction at Comanche Peak, .,- '.. :3 $ "in t ;. _.,. : - i n.: ..y u. In addition, the attached summaries were done very hurriedly and (while we have attempted to include sufficient information to allow the Board to understand the importance of the documents) do not represent our total arguments regarding these documsnts. i One of the reasons these ANI documents is important is because of the position held by the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANI's) at Comanche Peak. As stated by Applicants' counsel, Mr. Horin, during the 7/26/84 conference call "These SIS reports are. . inspections by the authorized nuclear inspector... the authorized nuclear inspector is not a contractor or subcontractor, he's an independent inspector who is out at the site." (Tr. 13851/3-9, emphasis added.) In addition, these documents are relevant and material to CASE's Contention 5 because in some instances th with items Further, in several instances, the ANI specifically identified' clear trends and patterns which Applicants' own OA/0C program had failed.co promptly identify or correct. Additional points are contained in the discussions of each of the categories. There are a couple of specific items to which CASE wishes to call the Board's attention. One has to do with the report discussed briefly during l 2 ~ y_ . e

C.'"4" CrrsT;;=~%~T.as--s.,. ~L ~.,.4.~~,+ij.,=~l40'0.00?40.=%22JJJOT""??IOJJZOr?%rX,30; JJa'"00 " : l the conference call (at Tr.. 13,850/2-22); this is CASE Exhibit 1,058, ANI SIS Report 932 10-032, dated 2/17/84. It is included on pages 8 and 9 of the attachedJsection on "ANI REPORTS SlWEI. DING." We believe that this-particular report is relevant and materiaI in several ways and deserves further comment. As the ANI stated,.this report (which was dated 2/17/84) has to do with hidden welds on a support, in regard t'o interpass te'aperature while welding to embed plates. The welder admitted that he did not know the thickness of the embed plate he was welding to, nor did he check the interpass j temperature during welding. Further, in Applicants' answer to this report \\ (dated 3/9/84), they stated that the welder was retrained and that" the QC department was instructed to monitor preheat and interpass temperatures 2 days a week, to be implemented by 3/12/84 This report is important in several ways. One of 'the most important is a regarding; prompt identification and corrective action regarding nonconforming conditions. Applicants had been on notice regarding this problem not only through the February 1984 prefiled testimony of Henry and Darlene Stiner d/. but also through the affidavit of Henry and Darl'ene Stiner filed July 28, 1983 g /. However, corrective action was apparentl'y-not taken until 3/9/84 when the problem was pointed out by the ANI, to'be implemented by 3/12/84, and apparently consisted only of instructing the OC /17' gee page log line 14, through page 12, line 10, bound in-following Tr. ~ Q 33, stricken at Tr. 9955/21-9960/24., / f_2,/ sae' Affidavit ~of Henry and Darlene Stiner,,page 4, line 1, through page 2. Cline 25;) attached to CASE's 7/28/83 lette'r to the Board under, subject ol' Objections ' to Board's Findings and CASE's Answer.to Applicants' 7/15/83 Summary of the Record Regarding Weave and Downhill' Welding. ~ g A Y x 3, t.. Mg e a + - - - -,

..,.4::e CC,: ?.C%s;a;c.sa;... .. ;;'.;QCi' ' 10;CZ;!!';%^~' ~'??.C O O'"'~"W: !?C C'"'2'O O C!"- l l I i department to monitor preheat and interpass temperatures two days a week. In addition, this report and Applicants' response to it is contrary to testimony in th,e operating license hearings by Applicants' witnesses, and this ANI report was in fact written up at almost the exact time Applicants' witnesses were testifying in the operating license hearings that they and everybody they ever knew of or even heard of always checked the heat input when velding f3/. This ANI Report obviously calls into question the testimony of Applicants' witnesses in this regard (as well as in regard to their other testimony). (It should be noted that the NRC Staff is also looking into the matter of proper use of preheat at Comanche Peak.) To CASE, perhaps the most important aspect of this is not that Applicants did not respond to the 7/28/83 allegations of Henry and Darlene Stiner, but the way Applicants responded to them -- by apparently ignoring 3 the problem, then by successfully (with the assistance of the NRC Staff) attempting to keep Henry and Darlene Stiner's testimony in this regard out of the record, then by attempting to mislead the Board regarding preheat at Comanche Peak, and next, by attempting to prevent CASE from getting the ANI Reports into the hands of the Board. Further, Applicants' counsel attempted to downplay the importance of this particular ANI Report (Tr. 13,855/3-7), altho' gh Applicants' attorneys (even assuming that they were not themselves u f3/ See, for example, testimony of Applicants' Witnesses Clif ton R. Brown at Tr. 11,465-11,466, 11,468, 11,486; Fred E. Coleman at Tr. 11,535-j 11,537, 11,567, 11,570-11,571; Isaiah Pickett at Tr. 11,615-11,620, 11,643, 11,651-11,652; Armand M. Braunuller and Salvador Fernandez at Tr. 11,663-11,664, 11,668, 11,670; and perhaps others -- we are still working on our welding findings and do not have the additional citations at this time. j d* j ~ =,_. - - - - - - ~ - - - - -

....., ~ :.:.,;:.=

b ':.'==='.= = ':s=.a"*

":==: Y::.": ' ' ' ' '^' ~ =:=:= ~, ~ ~ ~ i aware of the contents of the report earlier, were made aware of it over a month ago, with CASE's 6/30/84 letter to Mr. Reynolds under subject of " Documents Obtained by CASE in Rate Hearings Which Are Also Relevant and Material for Operating License Hearings," and CASE's 6/30/84 Request to Applicants for Admissions, to which we attached a brief description of the ) ~ portions of the documents, along with copies of the documents themselves f4/. CASE submits that Applicants themselves should have called this February 17 report and Applicants' March 9 response and March 12 implementation date to the Board's attention as soon as it occurred - I especially in view of the fact that this matter was a subject discussed during hearings which were underway at almost exactly the same time, during i the weeks of February 20-24 and March 19-23. And finally, Applicants put in place a partial remedy which, CASE submits, is too little too late - not only because of the timing, but also because t 3

"'+=D ~n -w;y;c > ::s _;..... e ;,._s.tx.o..ppryg,y yg - mp r evp'y

, or that they have even considered retraining any other welders. To CASE, this entire matter and Applicants' actions regarding it call into serious question the.. testimony of Applicants' welding witnesses and the adequacy and effectiveness of Applicants' QA/QC program, indicates a lack of candor and honesty with the Board on the part of Applicants, and strongly challenges the adequacy and intent of Applicants' management of the design and construction process at Comanche Peak. /4/ We are attaching copies of the same documents to this pleading. 5 4 ~. m ,;-y- -,.-.-,..,--.,.p-., -ai- - ' ' -- e " ~ Cm-T-- ' ' " ""---T-"e '=' w r

. u:. -. = :u - '.. ~ ~ :::.:=: = 1 ::::::::==unx:r:n:=:=.u:c.ne - . *1 ~ i ~ For this reason, we believe that this ANI Report should be admitted into the record of these proceedings and that CASE should be allowed to include it in our proposed findings on welding. As mentioned previously, although CASE has tried to include sufficient information to allow the Board to understand the importance of the documents, the attached sumaaries do not represent our total arguments ~ regarding these documents. They will be addressed further in the context of ~ the overall picture, in conjunction with other documents and testimony in the proceedings. l A brief example of this will serve to illustrate our point, and can be found in the summary section "ANI REPORTS - PROMPT IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF NONCONFORMANCES." In our overall proposed findings, we will include the fact that, although the problem of violation of requirements j that' nonconforming conditions be promptly identified and corrected had been 3.,. specifically identified by the ANI not once, but several times, Applicants never took action sufficient to correct the problem (see entire summary section). Further, although Applicants continued to " reinstruct" employees regarding the handling of nonconformances, Applicants' response was totally inadequate; the below-listed ANI documents (which cover a period from November 1982 through February 1984) clearly demonstrate that such reinstruction did not in fact' correct the problem: B&R is going to indoctrinate all employees in what is expected of them ~~ regarding reporting of nonconformances (1/20/83'B&R Answer). (See CASE Exhibit 1,026, AFL SIS Record 327, 11/18/82.) 4 ,, Everybody was reinstructed regarding NCR's. (See 11/8/83 answer, attached to CASE Exhibit 1,050, ANI SIS Record 366 and 366A, 10/21/83.) Need to reinstruct personnel regarding NCR's. (See CASE Exhibit 1,056, j ANI SIS Record 939 371, 2/6/84.) 6 l ~ {

-._....s...~.~.~k.,..,.;....~.~,..~..n e.., t.s, .._..;...a. -s CASE believes that the atPached summaries are self-explanatory (although the Board will have to read the reports themselves to get the entire picture). Initially, all CASE wanted to do was to be able to use some of the documents obtained in the rate hearings, which we believed were relevant and material for the operating license hearings, in the same manner in which we would have been able to use any documents obtained on discovery in the operating license hearings (having to meet the same burden of proving relevancy and materiality as for any such documents). We did not at that time attach any other special significance to them. It is Applicants' actions which have now given these documents such special signficance and which necessitated CASE's filing this Motion; and, after having done this very rough trending, we now believe that they do indeed have special signficance and importance for these proceedings. CASE's Motions For the reasons stated in the preceding, CASE moves that the Board admit the attached ANI documents (CASE Exhibit 1,023 through 1,060) into the record of these proceedings, to be used as any other documents so admitted can be used. It should be noted that this will not delay the proceedings in any way; we do not believe that testimony regarding these documents is necessary - they speak for themselves. In addition, we move that the Board accept into the record the attached i pages from Applicants' FSAR (17.1-39, May 31,1979; 17.1-39, Amendment 41, i July 11,1983; 17.1-40, May 31,1979; and 17.1-41, August 7,1981). These documents are discussed on page 3 of the summary on "ANI REPORTS -- ARC l i 7 e e p wam ~, .-r>- --n p --w-- ~

.:--s,--..,.,,,---,,--.--------a----.~.~,-.----------- s STRIKES", where it 'is stated in CASE's -discussion: "Further,' Applicants' prop'osed handling of the problem by use of IR's and punch lists in some instances in effect removed this problem from the established program of using NCR's to report nonconforming conditions'(which was in effect until 7/11/83; see accached page 17.1-39, S/31/79, and the revision to it, page 17.1-39, Amendment 41, 7/11/83, and pages 17.1-40, and 17.4-41 which were current as of 7/11/83), and is relevant to another portion of CASE's proposed new contention, use of inadequate or less restrictive (chan NCR's) methods of dealing with nonconformances." These FSAR pages are an important part of our c'ase. We believe that it is necessary to admit these particular pages into evidence. Although Applicants' FSAR is an Exhibit in these proceedings (Applicants' Exhibit 3), it is our understanding that only the current FSAR pages are kept as part of the record. At least one page (17.1-39, 5/31/79), has already been revised; our FSAR copy is not completely up-to-date, and we do not know whether the other referenced pages are still current (we only know that they are the pages which were in effect as of 7/11/83). It is therefore necessary to ge admit these pages in order to have a complete record on this important point. We further move that, since this pleading was prepared rather hurriedly, should the Board require further clarification before it is able to rule favorably on CASE's Motion, CASE be given the opportunity to supplement this pleading.- Respectfully submitted, fff_'3 y ij$fs.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224-i 214/946-9446 8 i l .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205Q707&oldid=4056802"