ML20206D689
| ML20206D689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T, Powell L ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | GREGORY, M. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206D669 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 8606200147 | |
| Download: ML20206D689 (14) | |
Text
m r
asuzuo conansm---
k 4
g gtstID UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pr -1 g lT
~
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSI M[
O before the 4
p ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA
)
In the Matter'of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al.
)
)'
(Comanche.Feak Steam
)
Electric Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
RESPONSE OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO., et al. TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS FILED BY MEDDIE GREGORY UNDER DATE OF MAY 15, 1986 AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER p
1.
Identify all documents upon which Applicants intend to rely to demonstrate that there was a " good cause" for the delay in completion of construction of Unit 1.
' OBJECTION:
The question is not the proper subject of an interrogatory as it seeks at an early stage to require the answering party to commit itself and limit itself to certain evidence.
E.g. Brennan v. Engineered Products, Inc., 506 l-_
~
h F.2d 299, 303, n.3 (8th Cir. 1974).
It also is an interrogatory to counsel as opposed to a party and is objectionable for that reason also.
Wedding v. Tallant Transfer Co.,
Inc., 37 F.R.D.
8, 10 (N.D. Ohio 1963).
8606200147 860617 PDR ADOCK 0D0004^5 Q:
P DFl '
g.
4 1
Without waiving the foregoing objections, the answer at present is, we do not at this time know which, if any, documents will be so utilized at trial.
2._
_ Identify all documents and all other information 1which provided the basis for the statement-by Applicants in their Current Management. Views and Case Management Proposal (June-28, 1995), at 7, that the plant was not licensable at
.that time.
ANSWER:
We are unable to respond because no statement of the nature' described appears-at the place cited.
3.
Identify all audits, reviews, diagnoses, evaluations, consultant reports, in-house audits, or other reports which Applicants received from the beginning of.
construction to the present assessing, analyzing, commenting on, discussing, or offering an opinion on the plant's
- construction,. procedures, compliance with industry or agency standards, or' management style or competence.
(This should include all source documents listed in Appendix B to CASE's Request for Imposition of Fine, Suspension of Construction l
Activities, and Hearing on Application to Renew Construction L
. Permit 1/31/86.)
ANSWER:
As of this time we have identified the documents listed on Attachment No. I hereto.
Given the very short amounts of time to provide these answers, we are precluded from saying this list is presently complete.
We will diligently continue our search and supplement this answer if necessary.
4.
When did Applicants first receive notice of the issues identified by the NRC's TRT reports and SSERs, and in what form did that notice come (i.e., NCR, IR, audit report, memorandum, consultant's report, etc.).
OBJECTION:
There are'over 600 " issues"' identified in the SSERS for Comanche Peak; another approximately 100
" issues" can be identified from the TRT reports.
Even after
/ s
^
+
adjusting for overlaps and the fact that some issues have been closed (i.e. either determined to be unsubstantiated or closed) there remain over 500 " issues" that appear to fall within the scope of this interrogatory.
To answer this question as phrased would require a review of many thousands of documents followed up by research as to who read them and when and investigation into those individuals' understanding of them an effort which exceeds the bounds of reason and constitutes an abuse of discovery rights.
In any event, such a task could not possibly be accomplished in ten days (6 business days).
Furthermore, to answer the question would require original research not yet performed and which permitcees have no other reason to perform.
Not waiving the foregoing objection, but expressly insisting on same, the permittees would point out that, to the extent covered in the Comanche Peak Response Team
("CPRT") Program Plan, the CPRT is presently engaged in studies the results of which, or the materials collected in the working files for which, will contain such information as is or will be available to the permittees from which an l -
answer to this interrogatory might be extracted.
To the extent that an a'nswer might be extracted from an
-L 5
examination, audit or inspection of those reports or files, or from the aggregate of the Non-Conformance Report ("NCR")
and related files covering the entire period of CPSES construction, the burden of deriving or ascertaining the -
0 answer would be substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served.
Accordingly, the permittees will make (or have already made) the NCR and related files available to the intervenors at CPSES, Glen Rose, Texas and the CPR" results reports and working files will be made available to the intervenors at the time and in the manner set forth in the response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14 of the interrogatories propounded by CASE in the Operating License proceeding (filed 10/22/85).
5.
For each item identified in Interrogatory 4, identify what response was taken to the problem and by whom.
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No. 4.
6.
If the answer to Interrogatory 5 is that no action was taken, explain the reason that no action was taken.
If that reason is because Applicants relied on a "second opinion," identify the individuals or organizations who provided that judgment.
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No.
4.
7.
Identify how each " finding" identified in Interrogatory 4 was integrated into consideration of the subsequent findings by others.
(For example, how were the findings by the NRC in 1978 and 1979 integrated into Applicants' response to the* findings by the Management Analysis Corporation (MAC)?)
RESPONSE
See response to Interrogatory No. 4.
8.
State your position on the following, including all evidence and reasoning upon which you rely with respect to each position:
a.
What delayed completion of construction of Unit 1 past August 1, 19857 b.
Why did that delay occur?
/ i
e
.4 s.
c.
Who was responsible for that delay?
d.
Do you believe you had a valid business purpose for the delay and, if so, what was it?
e.
~ Identify each person who participated in the decision-making process that led to the delay and describe in detail 1their role.
RESPONSE
a.
Construction of Unit 1 was essentially complete as
~
of August 1, 1,985.
What was necessary was determination of whether there existed safety significant deficiencies and the correction of same.
b.
During the latter part of 1984 and the early part of 1985, the NRC's Technical Review Team (TRT) investigated and reported on a number of allegations and concerns about the Comanche Peak plant.
At or about the same time, other outside sources (including, by way of example, Cygna) also raised numerous issues relating to the adequacy of the design of the plant.
It was necessary that all of those concerns be fully addressed, so as to provide the permittees, the NRC Staff, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with reasonable assurance that. Comanche Peak could be operated safely.
During the same timeframe,
(
permittees were in the process of developing a comprehensive l-program to address all concerns.
This included the establishment of the Comanche Peak Response Team, the I
l development of the CPRT Program Plan and Issue-Specific i
Action Plans and several revisions thereto.
The number of i
allegations and concerns and the complexity of the issues I '
-w
,n.....
6 raised thereby, was such that to adequately address all concerns before August 1, 1985 was impossible.
Reinspection, reanalysis, and corrective action is ongoing at this time.
c.
As stated in subparagraph b above, the delay resulted from the need to address and resolve allegations and concerns which had been raised by the NRC and others.
The CPRT program provides a comprehensive mechanism to analyze the co'ncerns and determine their validity and, if valid, to assess the root causes therefor in this connection.
See Applicants' current Management Views and Management's Plan for Resolution of all Issues (June 28, 1985) at 12-16.
Consequently, as the vast majority of actions required by the CPRT are yet to be completed, permittees are unable to answer this question at this time.
Without regard to who may ultimately be determined to be
" responsible" for the delay following August 1,
- 1985, however, permittees deny that any actions _ attributable to them were for the purpose of bringing about delay in the licensing or commercial operation of Comanche Peak.
d.
Yes.
Because of the allegations and concerns described in 8.b.
above, it was essential to address those concerns and correct any discrepancies so as to eliminate
~
safety significant deficiencies and bring Comanche Peak into conformity with regulations.
This was necessary in order to provide the permittees, the NRC, and the Licensing Board with reasonable assurance that any safety significant
~'
deficiencies have been discovered and corrected.
Early CPRT results have confirmed the existence of some safety significant deficiencies which have been or wiu ao corrected.
e.
There.was no " decision-making-process" which led to the delay.
Request for Documents:
The documents enumerated in w'ill be produced for inspection and copying at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, at a time agreeable to counsel.
Objection is made to the request insofar as it seeks all documents which " refer or relate in any way to documents identified."
Such a request is overbroad at objectionable for that reason.
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Permittees move for a Protective Order denying all discovery objected to herein.
Signatures As to Answers:
I, L. Ed Powell, being first duly sworn, do depose and
-)A say that I am the Executive Assistant to the Vice President of Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO"), that I am familiar with the information contained in the TUGCO files, that I have assisted in the preparation of the foregoing s
.c i
m answers,. and that the foregoing answers are true, except insofar as they are based on information that is available to TUGCO but-not within my personal knowledge, as to which I,
based on such information, believe them to be true.
D W%.
L.
Ed Powell
\\
Sworn to before me this 16th day of June, 1986:
kW W
Wotary PublM:'
My Commission Expires:
/A 70 o
9 I
h 4
e
,.w~
,,,,.,,,..._,,.,.c.,
.,.,..s-,
w As to Objections:
/
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray.
225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100-Counsel for the Applicants e
f L
l r
4 L
i
/
9-s
ATTACHMENT 1 S & L REPORT: "SELF-INITIATED EVAL. OF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF CPSES" LOBBIN REPORT: '" REVIEW OF QA PROG. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CPSES"
.B-& R MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS REPORTS CPSES STATUS REPORTS SER AND ALL SSERS PSAR QA. SERVICES ENGINEER. STAFF REPORT ON FSAR COMPLIANCE VERIF. PROG.
FOR VARIOUS SYSTEMS NRC INSPECTION REPORTS TUGCO QA AUDIT REPORTS COPY OF KAHLER/SPANGLER/KEELEY QC INSPECTOR INTIMIDATION REPORT j.
SPECIAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT SAMPLE GROUP AUDIT REPORT COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW TEAM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TMI INVESTIGATION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
- REPORT FROM TECHNICAL SUPPORT GROUP'RE: TMI RELATED' ITEMS THE PROGRESS REPORTS QUARTERLY QA TREND REPORTS FSAR FINAL REPORT--REVISED PROCEDURES FOR DOCUMENT CONTROL CENTER
]
CPSES FSAR VERIF. ACTIVITIES STATION SERVICE WATER SYSTEM
SUMMARY
REPORT PRELIMINARY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT REPORT FSAR COMMITMENTS FSAR COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION STATION SERVICE WATER PRELIMINARY SYSTEM ASS.
REPT.
l PRELIMINARY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT REPORT FSAR COMPLIANCE OF SERVICE WATER SYSTEM FSAR COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION PROG. STATION SERVICE WATER SYSTEM ASS.
i-REPT.
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS FOR B&R QA ACTIVITIES ON CPSES.
i QA SERVICES SURVEILLANCE MONT.HLY ACTIVITY REPORTS SITE SURVEILLANCE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS WEEKLY AS-BUILT STATUS REPORT
. BACKFIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT STATUS STATUS REPORT ASME DOCUMENTATION BACKLOG PSI SURVEILLANCE INTERIM STATUS REPORT CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT CORP. CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT CO. REPORT RE: EVALUATION OF NON-CONFORMING WELDS QA/QC STAFFING SHORTFALLS ANALYSES 4
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB REPORT ON PRCJECTIVE COATINGS l
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING REPORT FOR TEX-I' AND BRAZOS COPY OF 1978 MAC REPORT ON QA WESTINGHOUSE PMG AUDIT (10-81)
EMERSON CONSULTANTS FINAL REPORT OF 4/79 & 80 SAMPLING STUDIES 7, -.
e
,,my4.,
nr.e m-ne.-,m
,. - - - ~
,a,,-,-~-,n--
-u-
U QUANTITY ~ ANALYSIS REPTS DCC FILE CUSTODIAN QUARTERLY AUDIT REPORT CYGNA IAP REPORT SIT REPORT MEMOS & ANAYSIS JUSTIFYING AUTOMATIC WELDING PROGRAM SALP REPORTS TNE DRAWINGS UPDATE ACTIVITIES REPORT TRT REPORTS NRC TREND ANALYSES ASME SURVEY DOCUMENTATION CAT REPORT EG&G REPORT DUKE POWER REVIEW OF TUGCO NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MUENOW AND ASSOCIATES - EVALUATION OF CONCRETE IN UNIT 1 DOME MUENOW AND ASSOCIATES - EVALUATION OF REFUELING POOL STRUCTURE, UNIT 2 EBASCO ANALYSIS OF QA RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 1985 INPO CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EVALUATION NATIONAL BOARD OF BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTORS AUDITS HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY AUDITS 4
e i
f
o-SEATED CORR 5WONON h
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Do ZDED
\\)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD kh 6; 8 e
In the Matter of
)
/y
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
Docket No. 50-445-CPA
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Response of Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. to Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Filed by Meddie Gregory Under Date of May 15, 1986 and Motion for Protective Order" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail on this 17th day of June, 1986.
Geary Mizuno, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Appeal Panel
' Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman, Atomic Safety Resident Insp?ctor and Licensing Board Comanche Peak S.E.S.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory c/o U.S. NRC Commission P.O. Box 38 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing and Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart A.
Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission
. Washington, D.C.
20555
a
> Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen,Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers.for Public 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Justice Suite 840 2000 P St.,
N.W., Ste. 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington,,D.C.
20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C.
20002 Ms. Billie P. Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Project 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 i
l Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ff
() w William A. Hori~n f
.,m
,y_-.,.e,,,
,-,m
e LAW OFrtCES Or UN#
CIS HOP, LIB ER M AN, COO K, PU RCELL & R EYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTCCNTH STRCET, N.W.
IN NEW VCstn WAS HINGTON, D.C.2OO3 6
,y iswCP, Le8CRMAN & COOK (2O2)857-9800 AVENUC CF 1Mg AMgggggg s/
YORK.NCw vonK 10036 TCLCX 440574 INTLAW US sf (al2) 704 Osoo
..,, g 87 TELCx===>.7 a?CR*S OsnCCT OsAL
[
DOC M O&
T a02)
SQtWct BRANQI SLT.7. NRc June 16, 1986 %
/
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W.
Suite 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 Subj:
Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1); Docket No. 50-445-CPA
Dear Tony:
Enclosed herewith are Applicants' responses to Meddie Gregory's discovery requests filed on May 15, 1986, in the referenced proceeding.
Pursuant to the Board's June 6, 1986,
" Memorandum (Adoption of Discovery Schedule),sie are transmitting by close of business this date a copy of those responses.
This copy is a telecopy facsimile.
Applicants will l
transmit under separate cover formal service copics of these responses.
sincerely, Will m A. Horin Counsel for Applicants Enclosure Hand Delivery w/ Enclosure, Hand Delivery, cc:
Chairman Bloch S. Treby cc:
w/o Enclosure, First Class Remainder of Service List
-