ML20206P941
| ML20206P941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GREGORY, M., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206P929 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 8607020304 | |
| Download: ML20206P941 (25) | |
Text
. ,
P BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA et al. )
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 1) )
PdASE I DISCOVERY:
CASE AND MEDDIE GREGORY'S THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the regulations of the Commission and the Order of June 6, 1986, CASE and Heddie Gregory hereby request that Applicants Texas Utilities slectric Company, et al. , provide the following documents. " Documents" means any written, printed, recorded, typed, or other graphic or photographic matter of any kind or nature, and all mechanical or electrical sound recordings or a transcript thereof, any other sound reproductions, however produced or reproduced, and all copies of documents, by whatever means made, now or formerly in the possession, custody, or control of any of the Applicants, their agents or employees, or Known by any of them to exist, including but not limited to l studies, reports, minutes of meetings, memoranda (including but not limited to memoranda of meetings and phone conversations),
letters, rules, pamphlets, ca lendars , flyers, books, book lets, cards, and brochures.
8607020304 860630 PDR ADOCK 05000445 C PDR I
l l
- 1. All documents in the possession of any of the owners of '
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station that were generated in the course of the " monitoring program . . . . undertaken by Tex-La in connection with Comanche Peak," including but not limited to all assessments, independent assessments, evaluations, interim reports, notes of meetings, and raw data generated. See "Fermits/ Licenses: The Minority owners' Responsibilities - The Function of Legal Counsel," presented by William H. Burchette, General Counsel, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas,. Inc. ,
before the NRECA Committee on Joint Ownership Meeting, May 20-21, 1966, p. 5, hereafter "Burchette Speech" (copy attached). i Please include all documents (1) between the persons conducting the assesments, monitoring, and evaluation and the persons requesting such assessment, monitoring, and evaluation; (2) between the persons requesting such assessment, monitoring, and evaluation and other persons within Tex-La; and (3) between any person employed by, representing, or providing contracting or consulting services to Texas Utilities Electric Company or any of its parents, subsidiaries, or predecessors in interest and any person at Tex-La with respect to such assessment, monitoring, or evaluation.
- 2. To the extent any monitoring, independent assessment, or evaluations were conducted by other minority owners of Comanche Peak at any time, all the documents as identified in Request il, above, generated by these independent assessments, monitoring, or eva luations .
- 3. All documents and all other information which provided the basis for the statement by Applicants in their Current L. , , -
Management Views and Case Management Plan (c/28/65), at 7, that TUGCO management is not satisfied with the status of the plant and would not proceed to operate it, even if authority were to be granted, until all of the outstanding concerns have been addressed, their safety I significance determined, generic implications and collective significance considered, and necessary corrective actions have been completed.
- 4. With respect to each document identified on Attachment 1 to Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al., Response to Interrogatories and Requests for Documents dated June 16, 1986, a copy of all documents that (1) evaluate the findings and/or recommendatins in those documents, (2) propose actions to be taken in response to the findings and/or recommendation, and (3) direct implementation of any actions in response to the findings and/or recommendations.
S. All documents upon which TUEC relied to support the following statements contained in its January 29, 1986, letter and request for extension of construction permit:
Applicants submit that good cause exists for the construction permit extension [.3 [p. 13 Applicants submit that the delay which necessitates the construction permit l extension was not the result of dilatory j action by Applicants [.] (p. 23 LTJhere was no intentional delay of construction without a valid purpose. [p. 23 l
- 6. All documents that assess the status of the plant and that were presented at all of the periodic meetings of the Owners Committee and all minutes or other notes recording what transpired at those meetings where assessments were presented.
See Burchette speech, supra, p. 5.
)
P.- --
XHTdONY Z Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, #611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for Meddie Gregory A J ANITA EulS #
f 26 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 (214) 946-9446 Representative for CASE Dated: June 18, 1986
s I '
PERMITS / LICENSES: THE MINORITY OWNERS' RESPONSIBILITIES - THE FUNCTION OF LEGAL COUNSEL Presented by:
William H. Burchette, Partner Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Washington, D.C.
Committee on Joint Ownership Meeting Ramada Renaissance Hotel Washington, D.C.
May 20 - 21, 1986 i
NRECA 1800 Massachusetts avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
. l My purpose here today is to discuso tho. legal responsibilities of a minority owner participant in a power project, and particularly the role to be playea by tne minority owner'slehalcounselinensuringthat these respons1Dilities are properly fulfilled.
While in past years I nave dealt with various minority owners involved in power projects jointly witn other ut111ttes, my most recent experience in this area has been as general counsel of Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. As nas already been explained, in the early 1980's Tex-La became a minority owner of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Project, in Texas.
Since then, the project has experienced extensive oeAays, price escalations, and significant difficulties in ootaining an operating license f rom the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The majority owner and manager of the project is Texas Utilities, an investor-esned utility.
In assessing the minority ownwr's responsibilities, i
one is well advised first to focus on the legal stanaard walen will govern the minority owner's conduct. As is true or essentially all utility management actions, the minority i participant's conduct will be judged by tne standard of prudence: whether the action it took can be viewea as i reasonable, given the circumstances and f acts known to it at i
i
_ 2 the time. An important consideration in assessing pruaence is to determine how the. actions compare with those of otner companies ih the industry facing similar circumstances.
The prudency standara mignt be applieo to a minority owner in a variety of circumstances. Most lixely, however, it will be applied when the minority owner seeks to recover trom its rate payers the full cost of its minority participation.
Particularly where the project involved is plaguea oy proolems and is far over budget, the state utility commission will want to determine whether the minority owner's expenattures were ,
incurred prudently.
It is worth noting that the minority owner's responsibilities, and how its prudency will be juogea, are not necessarily identical to the standards governing the majority owner and manager of the project. This alfference was aealt with recently by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a proceeding involving New England Power Company, which was a minority owner in the Pilgrim II nuclear project. Tnat pro]ect ultimately was cancelled by tne majority owner. At the time the issue of the minority owner's prudence arose before FERC, the Massachusetts Public Utilities Department alreacy had determined, based on the prucency stancard, that the majority owner should have cancelled the project approximately one year
sooner than it did, and that any expenses it incurred in that intervening year were~ imprudent. The question oefore FERC concerned the minority owner's share of those same expenditures. What FERC concluded was that the impr'udence ot the majority owner could not automatically be imputed to ene minority owner. Rather, the minority owner's actions in continuing to make contributions in the year prior to cancellation had to be assessed independently, casea on wnac the minority owner knew at the time, what it shoula nave known, whether it had reason to believe that the project's problems could be overcome, and other such consiaerations. In the ena, FERC concluded that the minority owner, given ene circumstances and facts known to it at the time, han been reasonable in continuing to pay for the project even after the pro 3ect nac encountered difficulties.
1 I now will review some of the actions a pruoent minority owner might take to ensure that it properly fulf1Als its legal responsibilities. Many of these steps were taken oy Tex-La in connection witn Comanche Peak. The role of the minority owner's legal counsel is to help make the minority owner fully aware of its duties, and, at every step along the way, to advise the minority owner regarcing the prudent course of conduct.
-, ..4. . , _ . _ . , - , - . - , ,y, ,-. , _ , _.,-,--%,_..__,__.________.-,.,----_.y , ---.__m,,,..-.,-rw_-- ,-__,_,.._w_.
4 -
The very first question the minority owner faces, of course, is the decision of whethee to participate in ene power project in question.
The prudence or that decision necessarily must reflect what is known about the project at the time ene decision is made. Invariably, any time a minority owner elects to become a minority owner, it will do so because the project looks promising at the time, and appears to fulfill tne
- minority owner's needs. Unfortunately, those assessments, however pcudwast when they are made, snmarimes prove wrong.
Attempting to negotiate the best possible terms in a joint ownership agreement is of course essential. In most cases, the majority owner will retain to itself chs tuli management discretion and authority regarding tne construction and licensing of the project. Most ma]ority owners wt11 not readily agree to share control with the minority owner.
Nevertheless, the minority owner should make certain enac une agreement gives it the right to receive all informacion ano progress reports it needs to properly monitor tne status of cne project as it is being built and licensed. Other key terms or the joint ownership agreement include those involving the potential default of the minoricy owner, and the ma]ortcy owner's responsibilities in the event that the project is delayed, costs too much more, or encounters other difficulties.
The exact standard governing the majority
S- ;
owner's construction and licensing effort is particularly i
1 Quite commo'nly the majority owner will expressly crucial.
commit to constructing the project in accoccance with so-callea l 1
" prudent utility practice." This requires it to manage the l l
project's construction and licensing in a competent manner, l l
based on the prevailing industry standard of performance. '
I Assuming, as is likely, that the minority owner nas no direct say in how project construction and licensing are being handled, it should make certain that it knows at all times how those tasks are progressing. It must be sure to obtain from the majority owner all essential information regarding the project's status. As soon as the minority owner begins participation in a project, it is imperative that it initiate a monitoring program comparable to that undertaken by Tex-La in connection with Comanche Peak. This program nas enabled Tex-La to make its own independent assessment of the status of the project. Often this assessment has been consioerably more pessimistic than the assessment the majority owner announceo l
publicly or conveyed to ene minority owners at the perioaic l
l meetings of the Owners Committee. Unfortunately, the pessimistic assessments from the monitoring program in the long run have proven to be accurate. In this regard, it is particularly important not simply to rely on information tea to you by the majority owner. They necessarily will oe reluctant t
. , . , - , - - . . . _ - .-,a
6- .
to admit that problems exist. Thus, any information they provide should be carefully scrutinized ana questionea by experts retained by the minority owner ana having the appropriate type of expertise, depending on ene kino of pro]ect involved. It is important that these ce outside experts, not on the minority owner's regular staff, so that they can evaluate the data with an appropriate degree of inaepenaence and objectivity. If at all possible, the monitoring program also should include, on a regular oasis, airect interviews witn key management people from the majority owner.
Whenever the minority disagrees witn how une pro]ect is being managed, it should raise questions with tne majortcy owner, and alert the majority owner to its concerns. It is important, however, if under the joint ownersnip agreement ene majority owner has retained sole management responsibility, that the minority owner not e.ctually seen to participate in ene majority owner's management decisions. It it does so, it runs the risk that i t ultimately will share tne responsibility ror any management imprudence whicn occurred. This coula severely undercut the minority owner's ability to recover its share of the project costs in its rates, or to ootain a recovery in a 1
l possible lawsuit against the majority owner based on mismanagement. !
Therefore, the minority owner shoula monitor, '
raise questions, and express its concerns, but it snoula not tell the minority owner what to do.
The minority owner's legal counsel necessarily wt11 ee involved also in interpreting the joint ownership agreement tor the minority owner and advising the minority owner of its rights.
One question which almost inevitably will arise if a i
project is in trouble, and which arose in the case of Comanche Peak, is the question of whether the minority owner should continue to make payments to the majority owner for its snare of the project. Comanche Peak now is years cenind schedule, i
and the majority owner appears unable to date to satisty tne i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that an operating license shoula be issued.
It is uncertain whether a license ever wt11 oe issued. Tex-La believes that the majority owner has actea imprudently in its management of construction and licensing, and, no doubt, the majority owner will be unable to recover all its project costs in its rate base. Nevertheless, tne question of whether the minority owner shoulo continue paying the ma]ority owner is quite complex, and involves numerous factors. Although the majority owner may have been imprudent, the minority owner might reasonably expect the project ultimately to be completed and licensea, ano enerefore may want
to avoid the risks inherent in stopping its payments. in particular, the Comanche Peak Joint Ownership Agreement imposes severe penalties on any minority owner who oeiaults, and, until either a court or a commission has held the ma]ority owner imprudent, the minority owner is proceeding at some risk in taking action based only on its own opinion that imprucence has occurred. The minority owner's ability to continue funding the ever increasing costs of the project also will affect the decision. All these considerations must be balanceo in determining whether to continue to pay for a troubled pro 3ect, j and in deciding precisely when to discontinue payments.
Counsel for the minority owner will have to aavise nts client also on what legal rights it may have to oe maae wnote by the majority owner for any imprudent management by the majority owner. This necessarily will involve an assessment ot all of the complex factors and considerations that normally affect a decision on whether or not to initiate litigation.
l I will close by describing one particular incident of cather obvious imprudence by the majority owner of Comanene Peak, and some of the consequences that Texas Utilities now faces as a result. In late January, 1986, the NRC ciscovereo that Texas Utilities' construction permit for Unit 1 of Comanche Peak had expired in early huquat, 1985 -- almost six l _.
9- :
I months earlier. Never before had an applicant for a nuclear project license allowed its construction permit to lapse. Tne NRCadvisedtheCompanyoftheexpiration, ano the Company immediately ceased all construction activities on tne project.
The Company then promptly filed an application for an extenston of the expired permit, and, within two weeks, the NRC staff reinstated the license and construction was resumed. However, the consequences of the Company's oversight in failing to renew its permit in a timely fashion are still continuing. Had it sought the extension before the permit expired in August, 1985, a grant of the extension by the NRC would have been almost routine. The NRC's extension of the permit some six montns after expiration, however, now is open to legal challenge oy an 4
intervenor in the NRC proceeding, which has appealso ene decision to the United States court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In addition, the question of wnetner l
l " good cause" exists for granting the extension, as requireo by law, still is to be the subject of a hearing before tne Atomic Safety and Licensing Board established by the NRC to near this case. Either of these proceedings could oring aoout tne cancellation of the construction permit, which inevitably woula spell the eno of the project.
As to Tex-La's actions, over a year ago, through its monitoring program, 1-t raised a question with the majority owner as to whether the system it was using for keeping track of its licenses and permits was adequate. Ooviously, it was not. Since the license has expired, Tex-La has furtner inquired of the Company regarding the proceoures it intenas to institute to ensure that no other licenses or permits will expire.
At this stage, it is unclear when Comanche Peak will be licensed, and, indeed, whethec it ever will be licenseo.
Tex-La continues to closely monitor the proceedings at the NRC, a
and is doing everything it can to make sure that its minortcy ownership interest is being managed in a prudent manner.
4 P
i l
l J
l
- av ~ n ..
,- - - < -en,._, - - - .. . ,--- , , - - . . - , - - . - - _ - .
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA et al. )
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PHASE I DISCOVERY: CASE AND MEDDIE GREGORY'S THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS were served today, June lo, 1986, by first class mail, or by hand where indicated by an asterisk, upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205S5 Dr. Walter,H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 l
Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory l P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.*
dishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, N#
Washington, D.C. 20046 i
Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20b55 i
i 1
- Gaary S. Mizuno, Esq.*
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.*
c/o Ropes & Gray 1001 22nd St., NW, #700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
'ANTHONYZ.fo l
I i
~JUN 29 mR6
- 6/18/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of }{
}{ Docket No. 50-445-CPA TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{
COMPANY, et al. }{ (Application for a (Comanche Peak. Steam Electric }{ Construction Permit)
Station, Units 1 and 2) }{
JOINI INTERVENORS' 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the Rules of Practice and the Board's 6/6/86 Memorandum and Order (Adoption of Discovery Schedule), Joint Intervenors CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) and Meddie Gregory request responses to the questions below and production of the sought-after documents.
We expect receipt of responses to these interrogatories and requests for document production not later than July 3,1986, as set forth in Attachment ~A to the Board's 6/6/86 Memorandum and Order (Adoption of Discovery Schedule) n/.
Instructions
- 1. Each interrogatory or document request should include all I
pertinent information known to Applicants, their officers, directors, or employees, their agents, advisors, or counsel. " Employees" is to be construed in the broad sense of the word, including specifically Brown &
/.
g/ The Board's 6/6/86 Memorandum and Order set June 19 as the last date for Phase I discovery and July 3 as the date on which Phase I discovery closes. The Board also stated that all filings are to be delivered by
{
the due date.
&7 f, h (.m & O /($
c 1 g y, 1
Root, Gibbs & Hill, Ebasco, Cygna, Stone and Webster, Evaluation Research Corporation, TERA, any consultants, subcontractors, and anyone else performing work or services on behalf of the Applicants or their agents or subcontractors.
- 2. Each answer should indicate whether it is based on the personal knowledge of the person attesting to the answer and, if not, on whose personal knowledge it is based.
- 3. The term " documents" shall be construed in the broad sense of the word and shall include any ; writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reports, studie s, audits, slides, internal memoranda, informal notes, handwritten notes, tape recordings, procedures, specifications, calculations, analyses, and any other data compilations from which Information can be obtained. -
4 /s to each document provided, Applicants shall consider that providing tae document constitutes an admission of its authenticity or, pursuant t610 CFR paragraph 2.742(b), the basis for refusing to so admit.
- 5. Answer each interrogatory in the order in which it is asked, numbered to correspond to the number of the interrogatory. Do not combine answers.
- 6. These interrogatories and requests for documents shall be continuing in nature, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(e) and the past directives of the Licensing Board. Supplementation shall be made at least every two I
- months to avoid resubmittal of these interrogatories.
I
- 7. For each item supplied in response to a request for documents, identify it by the specific question number to which it is a response. If the item is excerpted from a document, identify it also by the name of the document.
2
l l
l Interrogatories Some of the following interrogatories refer back to questions contained in Joint Intervenors' 6/9/86 2nd Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents; in those instances, we have abbreviated the reference such as:
Q. 2-1 (which would refer to question 2-1 of our 6/9/86 2nd Set).
4-1. (a) Have any HVAC or HVAC-related items had potential 50.55(e) .
reports written against them? If so, specify each item and state what is the number of such items which had potential 50.55(e) reports written against them. What is the number of such potential 50.55(e)'s which Applicants finally determined were actually reportable?
(b) If this information is not available in this form, how many potential 50.55(e) reports were written against HVAC or HVAC-related items in 1985? In 19867 What is the number of such potential 50.55(e)'s which Applicants finally determined were actually reportable?
~(c) How many of such 50.55(e) reports were written due to potential or actual problems in design of HVAC or HVAC-related items?
Identify the specific report numbers and provide a general description of I
each problem.
1
-l
' (d) Which of the 50.55(e) reports in (c) above were determined to actually be reportable?
l 4-2. (a) Was there a potential 50.55(e) report (or reports) written on Il the design of the control room ceiling?
i (b) If so, identify the specific report number (s) and provide a If not, why not?
general description of each aspect of the problem (s).
[
3
4-2 (continued):
(c) If so,'did Applicants determine that the problem (s) was actually reportable?
(d) Which of the 50.55(e) reports in (c) above were determined to actually be reportable?
4-3. Please refer to 0. 2-8, 2-13(e), 2-41, 2-47, and 2-48, and to questions 4-1 a,nd 4-2 above, all of which have to do with various aspects of 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportability. In each of the instances in your answers to 4
those questions, also answer the following questions:
(a) Who (name, title, organization, whether or not part of CPRT) discovered each reportable or potentially reportable item?
(b) Explain whether or not (and if so, explain how) each item was or is being fed into the CPRT effort. Please briefly track each item, explaining what steps each goes through, how it will be worked into the CPRT Plan, and how it will be handled by the CPRT.
(c) For each of these items, please explain what has been done to date. Please supplement your response until all work on each item has been completed.
4-4. (a) Are all of the problems identified by Stone & Webster being fed back into the CPRT effort (or will they be)?
(b) If so, explain specifically which items are or are not being fed back into the CPRT effort (and if so, explain how). Please briefly 3
track each item, explaining what steps each goes through, how it will be worked into the CPRT Plan, and how it will be handled by the CPRT.
l 4
4-4 (continued):
(c) For each of these items, please explain what has been done to date. Please supplement your response until all work on each item has been completed.
(d) If the items under review by Stone & Webster are not being fed back into the CPRT effort, please explain exactly how such reinspections, audits, trending, determination of root causes and generic implications, etc., will be handled.
P 4-5. Q. 2-22 asked questions regarding reinspections by Stone &
Webster. In addition, answer the following questions:
(a) Is Stone & Webster performing a 100% reanalysis of all large bore pipe supports? Of all small bore pipe supports? Please provide complete details.
(b) Include in your answer to Q. 2-22 and (a) above whether or
~
not such reinspections and/or reanalyses apply only to Unit 1, to both Unit 1 and Unit 2, or explain whatever the case may be.
4-6. (a) Break down your answers to 0. 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, and 2-26 with regard to Unit 1. Unit 2, or explain whatever the case may be.
(b) Break down your answers to 0. 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, and 2-26 l
l with regard to small bore pipe supports and large bore pipe supports.
l i
/ 4-7. Have there been recent changes in Stone & Webster personnel (in l
addition to those discussed in your response to Q. 2-32), such as extensive hiring from the Houston area or other areas, or additional hiring due to strikes, etc.? If so, please supply a summary of details regarding this.
1 4
l
4-7 (continued):
(We are not at this time asking for details as extensive as a listing of the individuals involved, dates employed, etc.)
4-8. Do Applicants have any kind (including drafts) of projection, analysis, estimate, schedule, etc., as to how much of the construction that has been performed, is currently being performed, or is anticipated will be performed is attributable to, or related to, design changes? What does Applicants' trending show in this regard? If any such information exists, identify it with reasonable specificity.
4-9. O. 2-6, 2-7, 2-23, 2-39, 2-40, 2-43, 2-44, 2-51, 2-56 (and perhaps others) used the word " generic":
(a) In your responses to those questions, include a statement as to whether each was/is generic to the nuclear industry or generic only to Comanche Peak (i.e., is it a unique, novel, or unusual design).
(b) For each of the items in your response to (a) above which are designs which s unique, novel, or unusual only to Comanche Peak, where in Applicants' PS as each such item specified and discussed?
4-10. Q. 2-28 and 2-29 inquire about methodology and procedures which are being used by Stone & Webster regarding certain specific aspects of design.
(a) Is Stone & Webster, in its reanalyses and/or reinspection of
! pipe supports at Comanche Peak, employing methodology and/or procedures
' which differ from the methodology and/or procedures utilized by Applicants in their previous analyses or reanalyses, and/or inspections or 6
4-10 (continued):
reinspections? Spec 1'fically state whether or not each such different methodology or procedure is being utilized for an item which is one of the Walsh/Doyle allegations, and state which specific allegation is involved in each instance.
(b) If the answer (s) to (a) above is yes, plecse provide a brief summary of the differences in each such instance. Include in your answer the reason for the differences in each such instance.
4-11. (a) Have Applicants (including the minor owners of Comanche Peak) or any of their consultants or agents attempted to ascertain what caused the problems in design at Comanche Peak (including rsports, evaluations, or studies by consultants or others, investigations, etc., and including specifically any and all studies, reports, evaluations, etc.,
performed by or for Southern Enginaering, or performed by or for any of the minor owners of Comanche Peak, and all relevant documents flied with the SEC and/or REA by Applicants and/or the minority owners).
(b) If not, why not?
(c) If so, what documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, herein, and including job or performance evaluations, checks of credentials, adequacy of credentials and training, etc.) existed in the past or currently exist regarding such attempt (s)? Our question should be answered regarding
/ not only engineering personnel per age but also regarding anyone who made decisions which impacted design. List all such documents with reasonable specificity, including date, author (name, title, organization), purpose, etc.
7
4-11 (continued):
(d) If any documents which might have been responsive to (a) through (c) above existed in the past but no longer exist, please explain with specificity and in detail the exact circumstances regarding each such document.
(e) If so, what was/were the result (s) of such reports, evaluations, studies, etc.?
(f) 'Either during the research for such reports, evaluations, studies, etc., or in any other context, were there ever other individuals who expressed the same or similar concerns as the Walsh/Doyle allegations?
(g) If the answer to (f) above is yes, please provide specific details regarding each such individual, including but not limited to: each ,
specific concern (s); the individual's name, title, and organization at the time; whether or not each such individual is still employed at Comanche Peak (either on_ site or offsite) and, if so, his/her current title and organization; if any such individual is no longer employed at Comanche Peak (either onsite or offsite), such individual's last known address and telephone number; the time or time period (s) during which each such concern was raised; to whom each such concern was reported; the response of each such person to whom each such concern was reported; and Applicants' interim and final resolutions of each such concern.
(f) What is Applicants' current evaluation of the competence of each (please specify by name) of Applicants' witnesses and/or affiants who participated in hearings, evidentiary depositions, and/or affidavits regarding motions for summary disposition regarding design matters?
8
i 4-11 (continued): l (f) What is Applicants' current evaluation of the credibility of each (please specify by name) of Applicants' witnesses and/or affiants who participated in hearings, evidentiary depositions, and/or affidavits regarding motions for summary disposition regarding design matters?
(g) Is it currently Applicants' belief that any or all (please specify by name) of Applicants' witnesses and/or affiants who participated in hearings, ev,identiary depositions, and/or affidavits regarding motions for summary disposition regarding design matters were wrong in their cestimony, evaluations, analyses, and/or engineering judgement? If so, please give full and complete details regarding each such individual and his/her testimony / depositions / affidavits, along with a listing of relevant documents involved.
(h) Do Applicants have any reason to believe that any or all of the minor owners of Comanche Peak disagree in any way with Applicants'
~
evaluations in (e), (f), and/or (g) preceding? If so, state with reasonable
- specificity the reason for such belief and provide a listing of all documents relating to such belief.
(1) If, in any instance, Applicants currently question the competence, credibility, and/or testimony / depositions / affidavits of any of their witnesses or affiants, specifically what have Applicants done about each such instance? Provide a listing of all documents relating to each
! such response by Applicants.
(j ) Please review your responses to (a) through (1) above. What is Applicants' current assessment of what your responses mean insofar as Applicants' ability to design, construct, and operate Comanche Peak?
9
4-12. (a) CASE has not received anything to Cygna from Applicants or from Cygna in some time. What has Cygna been doing in the past 10 or 12 months or so? What is the current status of Cygna's review of Comanche Peak (including any time estimates of completion of reports, etc.)?
(b) Have there been any contacts between Cygna and Applicants for which communications reports or other summaries have not been prepared? Or have there been such reports with which CASE has not been supplied? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, please list all such communications both to Cygna from Applicants and to Applicants or others from Cygna.
(c) Provide a listing of all documents provided to Cygna by Applicants or others regarding Comanche Peak from the time Cygna first began-its review of Comanche Peak, including the date on which Cygna received each document (similar to the computerized listing with which CASE was provided a year or so_ago by Cygna, but updated).
4-13. Has any independent organization reviewed the design of the ;
buildings and all appertenances to the buildings? If so, what organization specifically has done so? What were the results of their review?
4-14. Has the CPRT or any other organization of Applicants or their agents addressed items such as the following which were not specifically identified in the CPRT plan, by the NRC's TRT or Staff, or by external sources (including CASE)? (As one example of the type of thing we're talking about: Has drainage plumbing been looked at closely? Are P-traps in place (which are above safety-related items which must work properly)?
Has cast iron plumbing been used above safety-related items?)
10 a
4-15. Do you intend to call any witness (either in hearings, in evidentiary deposition, or as an affiant in a written filing) in any portion of the construction permit hearings? If the answer is yes, supply the following information regarding each such witness:
1 (a.) Name, address, and telephone number.
(b.) Organization, company affiliation, title, and a brief job description.
(c.)* A summary of his/her professional and educational background.
(d.) w ther information bearing on such individual's specific qualifications to testify'with respect to the specific issues regarding which such testimony will be given.
(e.) Is such individual testifying as an expert witness? If so, in what specific area (s) of expertise?
(f.) The nature of the witness's testimony and a brief summary of such testimony.
(g.) List or identify with specificity any and all documents on which such individual intends to rely, or rellec, in giving his/her testimony.
(h.) State whether or not such individual or an organization with which such individual is affiliated has conducted any research or made any studies, calculations, reports, or other documents on which such l
Individual intends to rely, or relies.
(1.) If the answer to h. above is yes, state briefly the scope and nature of such research or study.
11
4-15 (continued):
i (J .) If the answer to h. above is yes, provide details as to who (name, title, organization) requested such research or study.
(k.) State whether or not such individual or an organization with which such individual is. af filiated has conducted any research or made any studies, calculations, reports, or other documents on which such Individual does not intend to rely but which may be relevant to the matters at issue in the construction permit proceedings.
1
) (1.) Provide for inspection and copying any and all documents
' referenced in your responses to (a) through (k) above.
4 (m.) ,
Provide copies of each witness's testimony at least 14 days prior to hearings / evidentiary deposition (or whatever other time period the .
- Board shall order).
(n.) Provide for inspection and copying at least 14 days prior
! to hearings / evidentiary deposition (or whatever other time period the Board shall order) any and all documents on which the witness relied in such testimony.
i Request for Documents i
I
~
Joint Intervenors request that Applicants produce the original or
. copies of all documents in Applicants' (or their agents) custody, possession, or control that refer or relate in any way to documents
- identified in or used for answering the interrogatories in this entire +
l Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents as set forth in the i
preceding.
4 12 i
..----,,.m,-+--_-..m . .-,-. .-..-.,.y.---., - - , . > . _ - _ , - . , , _ - . - . - - , _ - - . , - - - _ - - - - _ , . . . . , , - . , - - .
If a document has already been supplied by Applicants to CASE in another proceeding, Applicants can identify with particularity the location of the document or answer by including the name of the document, page and line number, in which docket the document was produced, and the date it was produced. This does not apply if the answer previously provided was an I
objection or if the interrogatory has not yet been answered. In that case, Applicants must reassert the objection as applicable to this proceeding or answer the interrogatory.
Respectfully submitted,
'44 g{Krs.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Associstion for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446
. Co-Counsel for CASE Dated: June 18, 1986 J
l t
i
, 13
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of }{
, }{ Docket No. 50-445-CPA 1
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{
COMPANY, et al. }{ (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{ a Construction Permit)
Station Units 1 and 2) }{
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of JOINT INTERVENORS' 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS I have been sent to the names listed below this 18th day of June ,1986 ,
l by: /HXMM)QEHX i where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
l Federal Express Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell i Atomic Safety & Licensing Board & Reynolds j Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 l Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson <
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
- P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission
. 1107 West Knapp Street Maryland National Bank Bldg. '
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 - Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road
., Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bethesda, Maryland 20814 881 W. Outer Drive
- Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
! Washington, D. C. 20555 l 4
1 i
i l
4 Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Fanel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nucle'ar Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N. W., Suite 611
~
611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036 Arlington, Texas 7 011 Mr. Herman Alderman Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Ca,pitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C. 20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 -
Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. ,
l Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels
! William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110
, Office of the Secretary I U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services Ms. Billie P. Carde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project San Francisco, California 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 94111-5894 Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20009 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
1800 M Street, N. W. Suite 700 Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20007 Washington, D. C. 20036 l
21 J Y s.) Juanita Ellis, President
. SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446
/
2
o-i.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j' I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the 1
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 26, 1986, I i made service of the within document by placing the same in
- the hands of Federal Express, charges prepaid (except that,
- where indicated by an asterisk, ordinary first class mail used),-to
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
, Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
[ Dr. Walter H. Jordan *Mr William L. Clements
! Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch i 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Chairman
- Chairman l Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis i
Office of tha Executive President, CASE '
! Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224
- Commission l 7735 Old Georgetown Road j Bethesda, MD 20814 l
1 l
i
}
, , , , , --~-.-,-n ---.-,,.vm-.-_n,- . , . ~ . , , - , .v.m.ne-+- ,__m ,,_,,-m__.cne r , n.,n, ,-,wex,,..-,---.~.ny, _ , . ,
o ,
- Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Austin, Texas 78711 Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C. 20002 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Region IV Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1901 Que Street, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011
- Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Maryland National Bank Bldg.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Nancy Williams *Mr. James E. Cummins Cygna Energy Services, Inc. Resident Inspector 101 California Street Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Suite 1000 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Francisco, California 94111 Commission P.O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
a .
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory East West Towers Building Commission 4350 East West Highway East West Towers Building Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
, f. 3.- y/ -,
( ~
gg/7~
Th6ffias nan, Jr.
- First Class Mail O
e