ML20211D670
| ML20211D670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2555 OL, NUDOCS 8702240091 | |
| Download: ML20211D670 (38) | |
Text
.
2555 BEFORE THE 2/17/87 UNITED STATES
'~
M ;f.[I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'87 FEB 20 P1 :18 In the Matter of
)
)
C F T y,, "
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt. No s.00j 6-f4 5kOL'
et al.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Introduction CASE requests issuance by this Board of a protective order relieving CASE of any obligation to respond to Applicants' Interrogatories to CASE, Sets 1987-1, 2,
3.
In addition to general objections applicable to all or a substantial portion of I
the interrogatories, CASE also has several specific objections to particular interrogatories.
Briefly stated, the general objections are:
1.
The requests are premature and unanswerable by CASE until it has completed its CPRT discovery of the Staf f and Applicants, which cannot be completed at least until Applicants unequivocally state that all modifications to the CPRT are complete and published (e.g.,
where is Rev. 4 of the CPRT?).
This objection is applicable to all interrogatories.
l 2.
The requests seek work in progress and thus are premature under the law of this case.
This ob]ection is applicable to all interrogatories.
h fj03 0
G
3.
Insofar as the interrogatories are deemed to relate to issues of plant design or answers are in whole or in part dependent on implementation of any aspect of the CPRT or corrective action plan, they are premature and cannot be answered l
until the work has been completed and relevant discovery thereon by CASE has been completed.
This objection is applicaole to all interrogatories answers to which depend on implementation.
We o
i cannot determine the extent to which answers depe,nd upon l
implementation until we have completed discovery on CPRT adequacy, but it appears that answers to Sets 1 and 3 depend on implementation.
This objection also applies to all interrogatories that relate to design.
l 4.
The requests in Set 1987-3 seek to require CASE to prepare studies and analyses which it would not otherwise prepare i
or would not prepare until the Board has ruled on the adequacy of 1
I the CPRT and until all Results Reports have been published and discovery on them completed.
5.
To the extent the analyses and positions requested are prepared by CASE's attorneys or representative, they are trial preparation materials and not subject to discovery and/or This ob ection is undiscoverable attorney work product.
3 l
applicable to all interrogatories at this time but could change if and when CASE retains experts to develop positions on any of the issues as to which discovery is sou9ht.
i 6.
All of the questions seek to know in various forms what CASE contends ano will be answered by CASE when it so contends in 1,
its way, not following an outline specified by Applicants.
This i
objection is applicable to all interrogatories. l t
l i
n
Briefly stated, the specific objections are:
1.
Se t 19 8 7-1, Q. I-6, and Se t 19 8 7-2, Q. II-2, see k an attorney's thinking process.
2.
Se t 19 8 7-3, Q. I-3, II-3, IV-3, V-3, VII-3, IX-3, X IX-3, XXI-3, XXII-3, XXV-3, XXVI-3, XXVIII-3, and XXIX-3, seek irrelevant information, information already known to Applicants, attorney work product and thinking processes.
3.
Se t 198 7-3, Q. I-4, II-4, IV-4, V-4, VII-4, IX-4, XIX-4, XXI-4, XXII-4, XXV-4, XXVI-4, XXVIII-4, and XXIX-4, seek irrelevant information, information already known to Applicants, attorney work product and thinking processes.
Discussion The essence of the filed discovery is to find out what positions CASE will take, the bases for the positions, the facts i
l relied upon to support the bases, the experts to be used, their i
factual findings and opinions, and the bases for their conclusions.
The principal objection to this discovery is that it is premature. CASE does not ano will not know the answer to the quest.ms propounded until it has completed discovery and of course received full answers to discovery, had time to analyze i
the data received, and reached its conclusions.
At this point, CASE has no final position ready for presentation to this Board, since discovery on the CPRT adequacy, Results Reports, and design i
1 !
k
issues is not nearly complete.
CASE's preliminary positionsl are not discoverable because they are irrelevant and constitute opinions based on " work in process" which, at least for this case, it has been determined need not be produced because it is disruptive of ongoing work.
Transcript of November 12, 1985, Hearing Before the Board, e.g.
pages 24,257-24,258.
For CASE, which does not generate internal documents, the disruption of work is even greater because CASE would have to stop its analytical work to produce answers to discovery which would reflect mid-course positions and supporting data which CASE would not otherwise develop.
In addition, where Applicants were relieved of answering "in process" discovery with literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of people working on the development of their case and thus avoided producing documents that actually already existed, CASE has only a small handful of people and 1
Throughout this proceeding, CASE has taken " positions" in the course of pleadings or oral arguments.
Those positions represented CASE's view at that time based on the information that it had and had reviewed.
Those positions were taken in order to protect CASE's ability to adequately pursue the issues and/or to advise Staff, Applicants, or the Board (as a courtesy and voluntarily) of CASE's then current position.
The only j
" positions" of CASE that could possibly be proper subjects for discovery are final positions upon which CASE will rely in this proceeding and those CASE has not yet developed on the subjects l
identified by Applicants.
We are confident that there will be some generic flaws in the CPRT but we do not yet know which ones or why.
We are confident that some of the Results Reports' conclusions will not be sustainable, but we do not yet know which ones or why.
Our confidence that there will be some flaws stems f rom our own judgments about Applicants' real commitment to do the Job right based on their past performance and the initial deficiencies that we have identified in the CPRT.
See Preliminary Review of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan (Dkt. 2), attached to August 15, 1985, letter from Billie Garde to the Hearing Board; CASE's 8/14/85 First Critique of Applicants' Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRTJ Plan.
diversion of any one of them to answer "in process" discovery would result in diversion of a substantial percentage of CASE's person power devoted to this case.
It is particularly inappropriate for Applicants to seek the information in these interrogatories in light of their owr performance in providing CASE with the data f rom which answers to the discovery could be provided.
While in recent weeks Applicants have begun to produce a significantly increased flow of available data in some areas, this recent " data dump" has, as CASE warned it would, come only af ter more than a year of hypertechnical objections and wrangling over virtually every discovery request and has strained, well beyond its capacity, CASE's ability to quickly absorb the information.
This newly s
released data relating to prior discovery received in the midst of the receipt of answers to CPRT adequacy discovery from Staff and Applicants and preparation for CPRT adequacy depositions is an obvious tactical maneuver.
CASE cannot legally be made the victim of Applicants' information availability manipulation.
Much of the data now being produced in relation to just-released Results Reports and in response to earlier CASE discovery is old l
data, dated a year ago or earlier.
See Attachment A for examples.
Applicants had the capacity to make this available when it was generated and at all times since it was generated.
Its sudden arrival as a prelude to the massive discovery request l
contained in Sets 1987-1, 2,
3 is an all too obvious ploy.
l The discovery also assumes that, separate and apart f rom 1
(
CASE's attorneys and representative, there is a cadre of CASE l,
L
steff who, like Applicants' staf f, analyze and develop substantive positions that are then subjected to lawyer review and thus that there is a body of opinion and analysis not prepared for litigation and not prepared by lawyers.
That is largely an incorrect assumption.
Virtually all the work on the CPRT, Results Reports, design, and other issues is done by the CASE attorneys and representative solely for the purpose of trial preparation.
Experts will be involved, if at all, only at the last stages of the preparation of documents for filing, or preparation of the case for trial or summary disposition.
No substantive documents are produced by CASE or its consultants that are not drafts or final versioas of filed pleadings or documents sent to the Staf f or otherwise made public.
Thus the answer to the pending discovery, i f given now, would necessarily cequire the impermissible divulgiig by CASE of the mental processes and analyses of its attorneys and representative.
10 CPR a 2.7 4 0 (b) ( 2).
Applicants' discovery is also inherently inappropriate in the context of this proceeding.
The reality is that, as CASE develops its position on particular issues, CASE immediately discloses that position either in requests to the Staff (e.g.,
Preliminary Review of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan (Dkt. 2), attached to August 15, 1985, letter from Billie Garde to the Hearing Board; Preliminary Analysis of Issue Specific Action Plan I.a.4, Agreement Between Drawings and Field i
Terminations, attached to May 2,1986, letter from Billie Garde to Vincent Noonan) or pleadings with this Board such as the expected summary disposition motions on CPRT adequacy.
But for preparing issues for trial or for presentation to the Staff, there is no CASE work on Comanche Peak.
Unlike A'pplicants, who may prepare analyses both for licensing purposes and for otner purposes and who must prepare information to satisfy the Staf f and this Board independent of CASE and its contentions, CASE has no information that is not directly tied to the presentation of its case in the various NRC fora.
When CASE has a final position, Applicants will be one of the first to know i t.
See Attachment B.
Finally, as to CASE's general objections, the entirety of Set 1987-3 requests CASE to now conduct analyses and reach conclusions with respect to Results Reports that CASE has no intention or capacity for fully pursuing at this time.
Our limited resources are now focussed on the CPRT plan adequacy, CPRT and design issues.
We do not expect to turn any significant portion of our attention to the Results Reports, at least until the CPRT plan adequacy issue has been briefed by us and the final Results Reports, particularly VII.C., have been issued.
Thus, to answer Set 1987-3 at this time would require CASE to prepare analyses that, at least for now, it would not be preparing.
Applicants are of course not entitled to require CASE to create documents or do analyses merely to answer discovery.
See Applicants' 7/28/86 Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order, p. 8; i
Applicants' 12/12/86 Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel Answers i
to S e ts 3-7,"
p.
5.
l 1
1 I t I
l
With respect to the specific objections, both Q. I-6 in Set 1987-1 and Q. II-2 in Set 1987-2 request CASE to provide its legal analysis of the statute and regulations.
This is prohibited by 10 CPR 32.740(b)(2) and Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In this regard, also see Notes of Advisory Committee (1970 Amendment), published in Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules (West Publishing Co.,
1986 j
Edition), p, 80.
l Paragraphs 2 and 3 of our specific objections (p. 3, supra) relate to the two following interrogatories, which are frequently j
repeated in Set 3.
i f
3.
Prior to answering this set of i
Interrogatories, has the Intervenor reviewed the Working File for the results report in i
question?
4.
Has the Intervenor propounded any Interrogatories regarding the Results Report in question in order to obtain any information it believes to be necessary so as to make its review of the Working File i
complete?
Applicants have no independent right to know what documents i
produced by it CASE has reviewed or what discovery CASE has i
l conducted on Applicant-issued documents.
Those answers would i
neither produce admissible evidence nor lead to admissible evidence.
They seek instead to probe into the manner by which CASE prepares and will try its case.
In addition, Applicants already know the answer.
They monitor document requests and reviews made by CASE, requiring CASE to identify each document it j
seeks to review and keeping track of all copies made.
Applicants also know what discovery CASE has filed against it.
These two i
sets of questions (totalling 26 separate questions) are i t e
i i
_=_ ___
inappropriate for discovery.
1 CONCLUSION i
i Applicants' discovery in its entirety is objectionable and CASE seeks a protective order with respect to all of sets 1987-1, 2, and 3.
We cannot at this time identify which, if any, of the specific questions could be answered without running afoul of the limitation on requiring production of attorney work product and mental impressions.
Onca the relevant discovery by CASE is complete, and CASE has completed its analysis of the data, CASE will know if independent non-lawyer or non-representative analyses have been done that may be discoverable.
At that time, CASE will also, as it has in the past, be stating most of its position and bases in the form of appropriate pleadings.
If such pleadings are not filed, but CASE has completed its analyses, i
Applicants can at that time, but not now, file discovery requests 1
i which will of course be subject to the normal objections as to relevancy, inappropriate inquiry of experts, attorney work l
product, and the like.
In addition, to the extent CASE's pleadings disclose positions and bases not previously known to Applicants, we will be generous in allowing Applicants sufficient time to respond to the pleadings, provided the delay is not so
}
long as to prejudice CASE's rights.
In short, when the time is ripe, Applicants will receive the essence of that which it now j
seeks, to the extent it would ever be discoverable, and CASE should be permanently protected from answering the present i'
requests.
At the appropriate time, Applicants can file new l
i
' I l
discovery requesto to address the questions to which it is entitled to have answers.
On numerous occasions this Board has assured CASE that, once CASE receives data from Applicants, particularly given the delay in producing that data, CASE will have sufficient time (comparable to the time it would have had if the data had been produced when it first came into existence) to analyze 'the data, conduct discovery on the data, and develop positions.
The Applicants' discovery directly conflicts with that Board I
assurance, and CASE should not be required to answer any of the discovery.
Respectfully submitted, 7W
/ANTHONY Z/ R ISMAN Trial Lagye a for Public Justice 2000 P Str,et, NW, #611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE LM G UANITA ELLIS 1426 South Polk Dallas, TX 75224 (214)946-9446 Representative for CASE Dated:
February 17, 1987 l
t !
4 ATTACHMENT A See attached 1/29/87 letter from Applicants' counsel Mr. Horin to CASE's Mrs. Ellis [ note: CASE is attaching hereto copies of items 1 and 3, which were attachments to Applicants' 1/29/87 letter, since we believe these will be of special interest to the Board]
,2 See also: Attachments to CASE's 5/5/86 Response to Board Questions; and Preliminary Analysis of Issue Specific Action Plan I.a.4, Agreement Between Drawings and Field Terminations
\\
A p.
+
/
m
~E7
~
6A. ore css or 2
BISHOP. LIBERM AN. COOK. PURCELL & REYNOLDS 120 0 S EVEN?EENTH STREET,N.W.
wAS HIN GTON. D. O. 2C O3 6
'2C2) 857-9800 BN N E W,o R R TCbEB e40 74 #NtLavv ut gig gop.LiggmesAN (. Coon ec.c:o.i c a se, es,...*.
... Av e,.v e or v : A-r.ic As N r vo... New vo...oom.
tara) ro.-osoo January 29, 1987 re6 xaner.,
watTre o mCCT otAL
^ s taoar Mrs.JuanitaEklis President, CASE
^
1426 South Polk Street
^
Dallas, Texas 75224
Dear Juanita:
Enclosed are documents responsive to certain of the q
outstanding credibility requests-which we have been discussing.
I have enclosed three copies for your use.
I will be sending a J
letter shortly regarding the status of the other requests.
1 as follows:
The documents enclosed are,
. 1.
Cygna contracts executed since the last update of our
)
response to Question 3 of the Second Set.
2.
Examples of damage studies and applicable procedures.
This material is for your review and consideration with respect to our discussions concerning Question 5 of the Second Set.
3.
The original NCR reejarding the drug investigation at Comanche Peak, provided in response to Question 23 of the Fourth Set.
4.
The documents related to the 1985 ASME N-Stamp J~
RecertificationT These documents are provided in response to Question 30 of the Fourth Set.
Sincerely, i
C -))/
Willia.. A.
Horin s
j
. Attachments
~
1 5
4 L
.i.
v - --
,yy,--. - -
_,._,_9--
,----._.--.__-w__-
,__---.e
. - ~,, - - -
S 4
6 G
Ouestion 3 Second set i
i f
i
(
M *2 ' * *3' TEXA5 'tTILITIES GENERATING
- MIPANY
~ ~
,' N. e "",
a otvistoN oE TE:
5 V UTH.nES ELECTC CO
- s fa#,T&gigag;?ul;~st(W"*-
u PURCHASE ORDER SUPiLEMEN 3
Anottsom av v.,es su,,sswer 1
_ osouction av twas sueei mmt 4
P.O. Box 1002, C'.en Rose. Texas 76043 I
Ausness rovai.
=*
- CPF-16651
.. m...m
'p"
'cayg ACCOUNT 8sO.
gw,,ugu, paousSED sv
.*. a souri. mar.oi
,.-25-35
- -
- -9 30-94994.'-0%
.a/A CVGilA E!;EnGY SEF.v!CEI, li!C.
0.5,". 'Nf:5.0..".1^."*!?te'.'!"?d 5
T 0
101 C.RIFORIIA, SUITE 1000 28",o^,f';'f,*u'gD,,8' ',"' 5, 'N uy y SAi; FRAliCISCO, CA 9*111-5c94
==asiao osaastusar.
AT I;:
fi.H. t:ILScit
_j x.43E77 j
twe rwacw Ae:No sspanYm"sYv*nYo$IEs"v"Uro*uT. "wa*UI"oYs7a*v'wEIINsTm"eEen puncmass omosa NET TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY
. U/I DE"'RIFTION UNTT PR2G ITEM PR3G NO.
WANTED THIS PURCHASE UkDER SUPPi.E!EitT istEn 4 IS ISSJED TO AMEriD FEE SCHEDULE TO C0!TI:UE EilG!liEEnIriG SERVICES At:0 TO COVEh UUT-OF-SCUPE ITE!15 IDEitT,"FIED BY ATTACMiE!!T 1 TITLED "LA50k COSTS ASSOClATED WITH CUT-OF-SCCPE ACTIVITIES" A!:0 ATTACHiiEili 2 TITLED " DIRECT E. PE!:SES X
ASSOCIATED WITH OUT-OF-SCCPE ACTIVITIES."
l A;4EiiDED FEE SCHEDULE ADD All ADDITIONAL TO THE TOTAL ESTI!4ATED COST FOR SERVICES UNDER THIS PUkCHASE ORDER CPF-16651.
THE ESTIt4ATED TOTAL PURCHASE AMOU?:T OF THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT TO EXCEED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY WRITTEN SUPPLEMENT TO THIS PURCHASE ORDER.
TOTAL ADDITION AS A RESULT OF THIS PURCHASI ORDER SUPPLDIEliT NO. 4.
ATTACHMENTS 1)"LkBORCOSTSASSOCIATEDWITHOUT-OF-SCOPE ACTIVITIES" DATED JULY 31, 1Wh.
t u.,. = h a.1,ina s.,,i
.u n 4.,*
4 d T - =. 4 c did
.aih..d.i I h a o.4. t p w s.,,i. =s.
~:.i\\
j
""***$ e:w coceck.d: C TEXAS tJTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
/
~
CHANGEDBY 0 il f f V M C / k
- 15, I (8171897 4888 EXT
- t ? 1 atoutstTIONeM.6, k rt_,f) J Hb / M l I8873 887d8818XT Sy
'" h
/ f E 2 'I
' ^
PUACMASING AGENT
.. Pew.e.u:.,e m TEXAf JTILITIES.GENERATINGf 3MPANY
.n-1 ofVISION OF 'IEX4S tJTILITIES ELECTTut.'CO.
~- - %.
6 P ~,r s or e
,,) S.UP.PL.EMENT NO.
puncNass Omossi sve=LawrNT cQNTINWATION S4$
P. O. NO.
,_ g
,CPF-;dd51 4
~
I U/I DESCRtFTION t.ghir.1 f !TE P CE 4
l i ri.'a -,r. S c.. [
,,. I.m.... _..., E _.. x 5 2.L. I n...s.
I.
.r
. :.. :.- r 4
.-C...........,....r.ic,LLY a.,
t er.:.
.'.b g
I f
1 p'
g
.S
.,a a
r.
6 e'
.~
Ab. Tanus AMs CONDITTONS amOwM ON TME FACC AND RCVERSC OF THE StGNC3 entCT OF THIS O AS ft supPLEM ENT ARE EPPECTtv5 COVEmeNG THE. ADOVE ITEMS AS THOWON REPtATED MemEON et te oLJ A ttMr.*. PMWV
- ATTAC, INT 1 TO CPF-16651
' SUPPLE.9ENT NO. 4
~
Mt. F.G. Peyton 84056.076 July 31,1985 Page 1 ATTACIMENT 3 Labor Costs Associated with Out-of-Scope Activities AMOUNT (1)
Activitd2)
Phases'1/2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Total 1.
NRC meeting & questions /
ASLB hearings
- 2. '
ASLS issues related to pipe and cable tray supports 3.
Report revisions 4
Expanded reviews 5.
Cable tray and con-duit support reviews 6.
Review of affidavits and summary dispositions 7
Design Process Overview 8.
CPRT 9.
Final Reports 10.
Project Managment'& Admin.
11.
QA Reviews 12.
Walkdowns 13.
Phase 3 ASLB TOTAL i
See Attachment 4 for sumary of associated direct expenses.
This sumary contains labor costs only.
(2)
See pages two through four of this attachment for a description of the work performs for each activity.
(3)
Unbudgeted costs associated with Cygna's participation in Phase 1 and 2 ASLB hearings, but tracked under Phase 3 accounts.
(
- r 84056.076 Mr. F.G. Peyton July 31, 1985 Page 2 ATTAC *ENT 3 (Cont'd)
Labor Costs Associated with Out-of-Scope Activities The following activities were not anticipated when the original budgets were provided to Texas utilities. The TUGC0 p'ersonnel responsible for Cygna's work, however, verbally authorized this work as a result of Cygna's participation in the ASLB hearings. This portion of Attachment 2 describes each activity not included in the original budgets. These descriptions correspond to the activities lis,ted in Page 1 of this attachment.
j 1.
mc Meetinos & Ouestions/AStB Hearings - Manhours spent in researching and preparing responses to nMt. questions, preparing for and attending NRC. meetings, preparing for and participating in the ASLB hearings. The amount shown for Phases 1 and 2 is related to manhours spent in activities associated with responding to MC questions and attending NRC meetings. The amount shown under Phase 3 is actually for costs associated with the ASLB hearings related to phases 1 and 2.
Cost proposal for Phase 3,, and 2 ASLB activities were included in estimates for Phase 1 however it was only a rough estimate since the scope was difficult to define. The Phase 4 amount reflects the manhours which Cygna anticipates will be required for activities associated with participation in future ASLB hearings. This number is based on costs incurred during participation in previous hearings.
2.
ASLB issues related to pipe supports and cable tray supports _- Manhours associated witn revtewing and evaluating AsL2 accuments related to the Cygna review and updating Cygna review documentation accordingly.
(Phases 1 and 2) 3.
Report revisions-Issues which came to Cygna's attention during the ASLB hearings (e.g., Richmond Inserts), which were not in'the original scope of Phases 1 and 2 resulted in increased manhours associated with t
. unanticipated report revisions.
Similar revisions were required for the Phase 3 report due to the impact of affidavits and sumary dispositions receivec by Cygna after the issuance of the Phase 3 report.
(Phases 1, 2 and 3).
4.
Expanded reviews - Manhours associated with the extensive findings in tne piping and pipe support disciplines such as mass participation, pipe support stability, and U-bolts (Phase 3).
This also includes the Phase 2 costs associated with the follow-up QA reviews of DCC and DCTG documented in Cygna final reports TR-83090-02 and TR-83090-03 (reference Cygna letters 83090.013 and 83090.017).
e.-----,_m--,-
,,m_----
Mr. F.G. Peyton 84055.076 July 31, 1985 Page 3 ATTACle4ENT 3 (Cont'd)
Labor Costs Associated with Out-of-Scope Activities 5.
Cable tray and conduit succort reviews - The original Phase 4 budget includeo mannours for tne resolutton of 5 findings resulting from the cable tray and conduit support design reviews. To date there are approximately 50 findings which require resolution.
There has been significant manhours spe.it in additional review of Gibbs & Hill reanalyses and new calculations, observation of conduit lab tests. and follow-up walkdowns to verify new information.
6.
Review of Affidavits and Summary Disoositions - Additional manhours for review of documents requireo to ensure snat Cygna properly considers all ASLB issues related to the IAP.
(all phases) 7.
Design Process Overview and Cummulative Effects Evaluation - Manhours associated with integrating the results of all four pnases of the Cygna 4
IAP, so that a cohesvve set of conclusions would be available for the ASL8 and the NRC.
8.
CPRT - Manhours associated with Cygna's involvement with CPRT related meetings and review of the CPRT plan.
(Phase 4) 9.
Final Reports - Manhours associated with additional detail in the final
~
reports wnica were required to incorporate ASLB concerns into the text and checklists (phases 2 & 3). Additional report manhours are also related to the extensive cable tray / conduit support reviews as well as report documentation for the cumulative effects / design process reviews.
- 10. '. Project Management & Administration - Manhours associated the extended
, lengtn or tne IAP (all pnases).
11.
- QA Reviews - Phase 1[2:
Manhours associated with DCC and OCTG observations.
Phase 3:
Manhours associated with the response time for issues related to surveillante reports and management review evaluation reports.
Phase 4:
The original scope was a review of the documents in the technical portion of Phase 4.
This was expanded to include dncuments from the Phase 3 technical scope. There were also additional manhours associated with l
retrieval of documents in N.Y.
16.
Walkdowns - Manhours associated with the additional walkdowns performed as a result of the unanticipated nonconformance of design versus As-Built configurations (phases 2 and 4).
...,-.,-.--.~--.,n,.
.,-.,-.,,,n.
s 84056.076 Mr. F.G. Peyton July 31,1985 Page 4 ATTACWlENT 3 (Cont'd)
Labor Costs Associated with Out-of-Scope Activities 17.
Phases ASL3 - Manhours associated w'ith preparation of anticipated participation in ASLS hearings related to the Phase 3 IAP.
This was 1
included as part of the original budget.
18.
Increases in Cygna rate schedules for personnel and computers - The rate senedules contractea in une original purenase oroer catea e/1s/83 were documented as valid through 12/31/83. Cygna did not, however, impose any increases during 1984.
The first rate schedule increase became effective 1/1/85 (see attached Cygna letter no. 84056.45 dated 1/7/85).
This schedule affects all phases after 1/1/85.
In addition, Mr. R. Stuart was added to the Phase 4 project team as a Senior Technical Consultant billing at per hour per Cygna letter 84056.059 dated 3/15/85 (all phases). This is not itemized on Page 1 of this attachment.
e e
I o
D i
-- ATTI 4ENT 2 TO CPF-15551
' SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 s
Mr. F.G. Peyton 84055.076 July 31,1985 Page 1 ATTAC *ENT 4 Direct Expenses Associated With ht-of-scope Activities AMOUNT Description Phases 1/2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Total Original Budget Less: Current Budget Budget Variance-
)
Table 1 Description Phases 1/2 Phase 3_
Phase 4 Total
- 1. ASLB-related computer costs
- 2. Senior review team
- 3. Report copies
- 4. Shipping costs l
i l
Other Direct Costs Outsidg39r Original Scope I
(1)
See Table' 1 below.
(2)
See page 2 of this attachment for detailed description.
(3)
Directs associated with expanded work activities such as: word processing time, telephone, reproduction, travel or subsistence.
s
~-
Mr. F.G. Peyton 84056.076 July 31,1985 Page 2 ATTACN4ENT 4 (Cont'd)
Direct Expenses Associated with Out-of-scope Activities The descriptions below provide further etails on the itemited expenditures from page 2 of attachment.
- 1. ASt.B-related comouter costs - Computer analyses required to substantiate Gygna's responses to issues raised during the hearings.
The following specific analyses were run:
- Analysis of oversized bolt holes.
- Base plate ana' lyses for cable tray supports.
e Frame analyses i'or cable tre supports.
- Analyses for tube steel punching shear evaluation.
l e Analysis for radial thermal pipe growth at pipe support (i.e., box frames with 0" gap).
- Finite element analysis of cinched U-bolts.
e Punching shear AWS/ analysis comparisons.
- Buckling study of single angle braces used in cabletray supports.
- Analyses run to evaluate the adequacy of Gibbs & Hill NASTRAN analysis of cable tray systems, e piping analyses incorporating axial rotational restraints.
- Piping analysis to evaluate effects of inclusion of ' support weight.
- Analyses to determine effect of neglected. stiffeners on base plate i
analysis.
2.
Senior Review Team / Consultants - As a result of Cygna's participation in the Asta nearings, cne senior Neview Team was restaffed by outside consultants in order to bring more widely recognized industry experts onto the project (all phases).
3 Reoort cocios - Binder and reproduction expenses associated with the additional copies of the Phase 1 and 2 Final Report which were not covered in the original budget.
4.
Shiocing costs - Additional expenses associated with shipping all Cygna corresponoence and communications reports to the NRC and CASE.
(Pnase 3)
t ' i'"" ' *
."us,'*'s"av scaviou'"s s'weebanasN7s"D" PURCHASE CRDER SUT71.EM2 C
%A" C V"'"*^"'
S mt
^-
g
- aooi7 son av vues svassuaNT
\\
- osouction av rwis sveesswant Texas Ut2tues Genersung Co.
P.O. Acx 10C2. Gen Plc se T.zas MCr
,,,,,,g e =,s.
. m..........
,n, C._r
,.t.:.
,/-
o^"
^"'"""0-
...1.........,
- /11/' 6 1 M 00 "a20 '.' "M 1/A x
3..
5.u.. C. $.,..[,'.
7 o
au ri av e.w.a,.s s..in..o.n c.i.u,c,ac.uco.on 7
CY H.A E.,
t..a
.er
.s unuss: a moniero sv mis sui 0
101 C'LIF0"U:I A
- I*: 1 03 Po.v. issuso omi.v av ma wan?
a SA'l F2 *;CI!-*,,'C1 N111-52N caaone osaaarusar.
ATT'i:
NATCY 'f!'. LIV'S y
C",:!FIP.O T3:
':A"C7 U LLIA"5 (2:5'277-55:3 THE PURE 84ASING SWBARTMEMr MAS edag g m8 PObbOWfhe CMAMot914 TME.S SUDPbEWWNT VENDO4 WILL SsGN aNS ASTURN CAA90N CSPV CF TH Sovt ssunastRED PURCMAGE 0ADER ff!MPR TOTA Ntf rTIM QUANTTTY
- Un DESCR! MON UNTT FIUCI NO.
WANTED T9!S P'JPC":SZ TI IR SUPPLI"Eli ' fir'3E: 5 IS ISS*JED TO 2.~r.'O FEE SC*JE2ULI TO C".F*T!*.'UE SERV!CES TECESSA*Y TO CO'dPLETE FMA ! 17 SF THE I.lDEFE40E': ASSESS?.E':T PC.0GRA'4 0F C dA!.:CNE' PEAK STEXi{ ELECTRIC STATIO't (CPSES' NET:..~iL ROSE. TEXAS.
s C.
T.
AvDOED FE! SC*iO'.;LE ADO AN 400!TIO!AL TO T:45 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR SERVICES UNDER T.4!S PURCHASE ORDER CPF-186$1.
THE ESTI:4ATED TOTAL PURCHASE AMOU.'IT OF THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT TO EXCEED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY VRITTEN SUPPLDE'47 TO Tu!!
PURCHASE ORDER.
TOTAL ADDITION AS A RESULT OF THIS PURCHASE ORDER SUPPLE:4ETT 10. 5 EXPEDITERS AND IMSPECTORS ARE E' TITLED TO ASi' FOR AND RECEIVE ANY INFORMATI0M PERT!*tGT T')
T)i!$ OR,ER.
O n., u. h a.4, w e
.w -.s T
.a c s 4 m
. n. a o w m.s.,rm
&.R.
i t
CILA50N 90M CHAMQ) QE' A'
- TEXAS ITTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY e
3.
cwAwaso sy-
- p. cicxE!S/p o l ist n as7mi nxT,t -
/m ('
caouismessa 7. TYt.ia.
i isin ass.essi axre 333 g _ [.
I /.)
I.
..[
/. [
PuACMMWeQ AGtNT /
.EP.rge v oto Th.AALJ 111.111L T b e.w it A A A.wr
. / ty t z,LN I
'7 A DIVISION OF TCXX.i LTILITIES ELECTRIC CO.
l 1
u s PAGE OF SUPPLEMENT No.
PunenAa3 C non cuPri.:MCNT CONT:NW ATIC N CF P. O. Wo.
g y 9e,1..re.:.
g e
TOTAL TT7.M QUANTITY l DESCRgFTION UNIT PRICE ITEM parq gfg N O.
- ANTED l
C " *l F *. *.* ! '..a' T..'. :. .*. .
"s..'w.r. :. 2 '. 4' '..? '. ' ' ' '..'*.1~.'.
'1'. f.* *.J.**"7
- 7 * */ #*
."..w
J l h.". ) *s *. ..'..f.
- T.
t*
t.
.. J
....: a. 2. :.-
.i.. r.:..:..,.
4 v. v.:.
a-C.,.n t....*.i5 "4.:.:.
c.
6
':PT.0V4 0F PE:'M 7'."C:'iG 0.CE.T. 2M L.P. + < s e..
r..-..,
. i e r.
- i.,..e r. c..s..e -.,s, v. :. e. s e.. :.".r s
e...
.\\.<. v.:. :.. s s.F ~..:s..:..
0 g
O%
5 4
0 e.
A6&i. T E AMS AMG COMOITIONS SHOWN 084 THE PAGE AND R EVEnSS O F TM S SteNED SHEET OF THIS ORDEJ1 avPPb3M aHT AM E SFPECTIVE COVSAtMO Twe AeOVE17aMS A8 THeueH nsPsAtus: MansoM.
PURCHASING CCPY.
- e.. M ao a n*
TEXA&"TILITIES GENERATING Cn.itPANY
.i -
f
. svtSION OF TEXAS UTTI ITES ELECT..._. CO..
neemmau creo inewuoiNa cucur. -
S m;mys c.v.Casviova sw *'aulaf 5 PURCHASE ORDER SUPi..t.EMEF
~~
aooifion av twes sv sament t
osouctsom av vues svaastutNT g
[
P.O. Box 1002. Clan Rose. Texas 7600
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g r o a.
l/A e
CPF-Mc31 iQAT&
ACCOuf6IhQ.
I*"
- U"'IEU aq$$.',T, l; -.......-.o
. -:-C,.......vi-T Cri W. g. ERGY S...d. C 5, D.C.
NO.GMaMets.o c.04 CAN.CEL.6AT IN s..
.u esais o
.iu coo ~a 6n. T - b. &.4,.bal+ e Ai.Lu vacass aurwoaaro ev vms su2 0
-l.u MEMY PoAM R&&uSD ONLY sy Twg a
$,.. FAAt.CI!C;;, CAL.
9:1*,1-3E6 cwasime canarment.
AT"".:
.VJ:CY aILIn: 5 g
g,g.g
- ~;iiFI A;'.50 TO:
ik.'.CY 'aILLI.*J'.! (415', 3*-7-5500 vrwoon w LL seen Ano marrumu cameow co.*v Or Twee suppssur.ef THS PVRGMASING DEPARTasaMT MAS hiAgg TME POLa.SWiNS C94ANGES tN TW S ASOvt NupeSERES PURCMAGE OmgER E
- 3' ITEM QUANTITY Un DESCRIFTION UNTT PRICI ITEM PRIC NO.
WANTED T;i:S FURCr.r.5E 0A05.h 3L7PL23Ei.T.*:LMEA 5 *S
~
I 5'u!; TG D.il57U. ATE ThE ATTAC.!ED CYG::A E*{ERGY' 5ER'/ ICES "57A*;L*.40 TE.WS At:0 C;i:0ITICTC-A5 AAE.*!OEC.
( ATTACH?.E.T.'.0. i';.
ho 800!TICte Y Th!3 SJPFLEME:.T..C.iEl J.
- EXFECITERS Ais0 If:S?ECTCRI AkE EitTITi.ED TU ASK FCA AND RECEI'.i A:;Y I :FOR.dATION PERTIiEhT 70 THIS OCER.
?
~i C0hFfRNI;;G TELEPH0!rt ORDER FL.tCED CM 4-23 86 3Y PAL'L DICXENS AT hrt!C:t TI:8.E TERA 5 A!.0 CONOITIO*ts '!ERE VERIFIED. Ar.Y C:iAt.GE RE;L' IRES APPROVAL GF PERSC3 7LACU:G OCER.
0_0, NOT CUPLICATE.
ATTACKIT
- 1. CYGriA EliERGY SERVICES "STA'.DARD TERits At:0 C0tiOITI07 5."
l Ramsee as harde manended, amis Q '
anede seesh and presume na Teene and comemous ed abe este&aal Purchase order end p a sapp 4emaan.
.t
- N "I,'N' NeA&ON FOR CHANGE
.s
.v
- e:47 TEXAS III'ILITIES GENERATING COMPANY i cHANOto av =. p r cge.c,.
7 ltas7:est.4estext l
k
.9% M
((rs 1 macuislTIONEM T T*H i j (017) 007 44:1 axT g
/
// P* *"'"
t
y yua 1 L.kA@U 1 I L A 1 A L=3 ULai L Kkd 1 A.' U,b.U ' A f d*N I fi
-Q-NISION OF TEXAS"UTIUTTES ELEC(,. CO._
s=
s
~
t
.~s 4
.L;...,
pA
~ OF e
MPPLEMENT NO.
puRCMA8E CROER COMTlasWAT104 SME[
T e
p, g gg, OCPF 16651 6
V
\\
NET TOTALLI TTEM QUANTTTY U/t DE3CRIPTION
_.N O WANTED UMTPMCE ITEM pm,<
REFERE:CE
- 1. CYG:a ENERGY SERVICES, ti:C. LETTER CECE32E.;
23, 1985
DATED JANUARY 6, 1956
/
Mg O'
e 6
i l'
.N s
I m\\
l r
- 49..'S e
. e aus e ed.
e amm e. egg.
s D.es fg k...
ALL ts. ems Ane comestone swoww og vws pace aseo esveses er tus esemene sneert op TMee ensen ans sPPseTavs eewsA8Me l
TMs Aseva stanse as teeowow aspsATse sesmeeM.
L..,-<.r.'
./ n,o y
. e..
PURCHA$ LNG CCPT 1
t._
f'ATTAf
' Trit 1 70 CPC-16651 SUPPL...ENT NO. 6 o
es e
s e
e a
eI g
CYCbA EFERGY SERV 135 STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS (RATES) e e
e 4
e
l
'TUGCO STAPCARD TERA 45 AND CONDITIONS l
This appendix, when included in a proposal to perform services, becomes a part of the l
contractuoi ogreement upon issuonce by the Client of a purchase order or contract. The terms and conditions specified herein will supersede any terms and conditions appearing i
on the Client's purchase order.
l.0 LABOR RATE SCFEDLLE Personnel charges shall be in occordonce with the following rates.
CRADE CLASSIFICATION HOURLY R ATE **
Sr. Technical Consultant 15 Offiew 14 Sr. Technical Manager
{
13 Engineering Monoger/ Senior Consultant J
j 12 Section Monoger/Stoff Consultont l
ll Supervising Engineer / Technical Consultant 10 Senior Engineer 9
Leod Engineer / Drafting Supervisor /
Training Specialist /Sr. Field Technicism 8
Stoff Enginew/ Project Drafter / Field Technicion/Computw Services Supwvisor 7
Engineer il.
6 Engineer I/ Design Drofter S
Assistont Engineer / Graphic Designer /
1 Camputer operetor 4
Drofter 3
Engineering Alde 11 2
Engineering Alde 1/ Apprentice Drafter i
Secretory /WarJ Processing Operofor l
"These rates are inclusive of employee base solary plus on allowance for fringe benefit (burden) cost (including holiday, vocation, sick leave, taxes and insurance), overhead and profit. The burden foetor la conditional and may change, subject to audit, as o rasult of fluctuations in fringe benefit costs, as well as changes in stetutory requirements imposed j
by low. The components of overhead and profit are valid until January 1,1987.
l Fixed labor prices may be quoted in certain proposals for well defined specifle tasks.
Such " lump sum" prices are inclusive excepting expenses detailed in the remainder of this i
I contract.
l 1.t OVERTIME
)
i Overtime for all Cygno personnel will be charged of times straight billing cost for oil hours in excess of eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week, l
l i
i I
l
. _ - - ~. - - - _ -
I. 2 TRAVEL TIMf Tirne spent in trovo!, when trevol is in tha interest of ina work cno cwcy trcm tna normal plute of ouignment of our personnel, shell be billed in essersance with tha eMwe Rote 1
5chedule. When t/oveler4, e maximum charge of eight hours per uur will be moon.
1.3 HOLIDAYS Cygno Energy Services personnel are entitled to the following pold holidays:
New Year's Day Washington's Birthday Memorial Ocy inoependence Day i
Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day One Floating Holiday l
In the event the Client's' holiday schedule includes odditional holidays in excess of those listed above, Cygno will charge the Client for only the sofory costs for the excess holiday.
IA JOS SITE INACCESSIBILITY When personnel assigned outside of Cygno offices are unable to gain occess to the job i
site due to, severe inclement weather of other causes beyond Cygno's control, reimbursement for actuol sclory cost for the period of inoccessibility shall be charged.
I 2.0 TRAVEL & LIVING EXPENSE 5 When it is necessary for Cygno, personnel to travel owoy from their resident location on Client business, the Client will be charged the octual incurred cost.for tronsportotion and livlig espeH&eb P ut
.; for adminl3tretive scryiccue I
l (12) months, the bnments of a duration in excess of sixty (40) days but le For field ossi lient shall be billed for all transportation and living expenses plus 1
. for administrative services during the first thirty (30) days and for o per diem allowance in lieu of living expenses paid to the employee in accordance with l
Cygno's policy, for the bolonee of the period plus reimbursement for actual transportation.
costs for travel between the work location and the employee's home at least every two
- J weeks.
For field essignments greater than twelve (12) months duration, Cygno shall be reimbursed for relocation expenses at the beginning and termination of the field ossignment. This will include payment for all subsistence expenses for o two. week relocation period of the stort and termination of the field assignment. Relocation expenses shall also include solory costs of Individuals duri trovel time to the Client's job site. Such travel time shell not exceed that required at miles per ooy. All of the above expenses shall be billed at cost plus for Cygno's administrative services.
2.1 '
MISCELLAFEOUS DIRECT EXPENSES Troval expenses, material shipping, mail /pockage courier services cnd other like expenses of a direct nature will be charged of cost plus
(,
) for coministrative services. Telephone and reproduction charges will be charged at a composite equivoient total manhour expended. Computer costs incurred from the utilization of of computer f acilities other than Cygne's in-house f acilities, will be chargeo of cost plus
) fEr Edmir rativo servicos. Uso cf Cygni's are proccasar and micro como*stcrs will be shercos et a reto si a:;r hovr. The ahorcos essociated =lth tn:
vos cf Cygne's compvter focility will tra es sh:wn in evr stent:re a:he vio fcr ccmpwtcr services, "oble A-l.
~
3.0 STAFFING Cygno Energy Services will assign personnel to o project within a minimum of twenty (20) working days offer receipt of an authorization to proceed. It should be noted that Cygno reserves the right to provide olternate equivalent personnel to those personnel designated by nome in the proposal in the event that thirty (30) calencor ooys have elapsed between
~
i the date of the proposal and the date of receipt authorization to proceed.
4.0 BILLING Compensation due Cygno shall'be billed to the Client of calendor m'onthly intervals end shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days following receipt thereof. Billing shall be prepared in such form and supported by such documents os the Client may reasonobly require. Interest charges of per month snoll be charged for invoices corried over the thirty (30) day receivable period.
5.0 TERMINATION PRIOR TO COMPLETION in the event that the Client requests termination of the work prior to the completion of on assignment, Cygno reserves the right to complete such onelyses and records os are necessary to place its files in order ond, where considered by it necessory to protect its professional reputation, to complete o report on the work pei formed to dote.
A termination charge to cover the cost thereof in on omount not to exceed of all charges incurred up to the date of the stoppoge of.the work may, of the discretion of Cygno, be mode. Cygno assumes no responsibility or liability for tne use of any preliminary or incomplete plans, studies, or reports produced by Cygno prior to termination of the work. '
6.0 DUTIES ANDLIABILITY Cygno agrees to perform its consulting services with that standard of care, skill one diligence normally provided by professional persons performing consulting services similar to those to be performed hereunder. Cygno shall provide such qualified technical ond/or professional personnel as may be necessory to perform the services required unoer these Stondord Terms and Conditions.
in no event shall Cygne's liability to Client for any cause exceed the total amount of I
. or the Contract amount, whichever omount is less.
Cygno maintolns professional and general liability insurance. Therefore, the costs are prorated of of the contrcct dolint volume and are billed monthly.
AF y@yk l
l i
a
..For any werk performs my Cygn:, its og nts, cmplayocs,
,6centracters, v:nosrs or tuppliars, of cny f acility of Client, Clien t thall inasmnif y onet halet r"y oaa u.~e...
ogainst all losses, claims, expenses and liabilities (including ottorneys' fees onc costs),
arising out of or based upon bodily injury or emotional distress to (including oeoth of any e
time resulting therefrom), or injury to property of, any employee, egent or guest of Client or its subcontractors, venoors or suppliers, caused by or related to the performance of Cygne's services except to the extent such injury is causeo by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Cygno.
7.0 ACCEPTANCE Proposol is for immediate occeptance subject to change without notice. Acceptance of the Client's outhorization is conditioned upon the Client's consent to the terms onc conditions of the Client's authorization. The. Client's authorization must be in writing; and the form of authorization, whether by purchase order or otherwise, shall not alter the terms and conditions of this proposol, except as opproved by Cyg'no in writing, 8.0 GOVERNING LAW This contract shall be governed by ond construea occording to the lows of the State of j
Califomic.
l 9.0 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR lt is understood that the relationship of Cygno to the Client shall be that of on independent contractor and not on employee, partner, or joint venturer.
4 10.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT This contract constitutes the entire ogreement* between the porties one may not be -
modified without the prior written consent of both porties hereto. Cygno shall not be j
bound by any representation, promise, or inducement mode by any agent or employee net herein set forth.
. k.
?
Q
- t TABLE A-1 4
CPU. MIN.
First Shift Second Shift Third Eh'ift 7/O MIN, First Shift Second Shift Third Srdet CON. M R.
First Shift Second Shift Third Shift PRINTIN G 1000 rocceds D23X STOR AGE 1000 roccrdvday TAPE STORAGE tape / day TELENET s
C0 N. MIN.
First Shift Second Shift Third Shitt MRST SH77:
7:00 AM - 5:00 PM 3cgin time SEC0ND SHET:
5:00 PM -1:00 A M.lo;pn time.
THIRD SHFT:
1:00 AM - 7:00 A M.login time 1
l, r.,,_
k 9
u W
e e
i dourth Set
CCMANC'JI i:n STIM II,5CTIIC STA;;CN g.g.g curraA;3C Co.
NoNCoNTolutANCI LEPoR; (NC2)
M.ga.01840 R.1 p
Page
!'of 1 1,11 No."
UEIT 5:11.W/ 5157221 1:2F./CGMFOM c i tao /:3 OfUtglga LoCC10M CL :.ZTAn oN 4
1&2 ALL ALL VARIOUS ALL N/A mucowron m o cowoI::oM Due to the temination of QA/QC personnel for suspicion of taking q
drugs while performing QA/QC functions, the quality of any items i
f, inspected or reviewed by QA/QC personnel who have been teminated for a drug-related charge becomes indeteminate.
5, Note: This is a generic N.C.R.
g u
- tr7 PARA aZrtRac Do c E:rT:
DATx
__anostro st.
6 i 15 i 84 Victor McDermott DATZ4
~ CE AZ71 E/AFFRoVAL:,(M 6? N J < a 2 i ZG ffo jf ef7 7
, clon acoussII
/ ~
opAz:: err Site 0/'Mor.
j P. Halstead
- } 3,Z2CETAILT"WDER 10C7150.55(e):
RICTTD I? t l}W kM) 9 hhIdia)
YEs No e,
5 IT TIS. LETE1DCI sDAR d t
dis?Os CloN: trwont taAIR -
-Ust As Is sc2Ar INTERIM DISP 0:
d Randomly select and reinspect a sufficient sample size to provide data 8
for evaluation to detemine the effect the alleoged drug use had on the y
functional ability of inspectors involved. Reinspection results will be i
evaluated by the Quality Control Manager-Site / designee to detemine the E
need for further action.
E DCE:
IiG. RITIrJ/ APPROVAL f
,]
P
- 2E %
3 h
9 da t <ve A5 l
k oa Ma it/
z,$i'.' t?
- ' M'%k DATE:
l 315?d5%;1% VEK1TicA!;0N & ~;,, cst RI:
7i r
i
= = 5:5' a.1-Issued due to loss of rev.0 original.
e
- /
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
'"C" "*
ftIAl ufiutttl NONCONFORMANCE REPORT INCR)
M 8/ 8/RWOI ashoutena ca f AG,'iD NuMSEm 40CA7.ON Cm ELEvav cN' Ain l
WNif
$7AyCTumt.- Systsu
- itsusC0upCNEN?
i
//A
\\
/%?
ALL.
Ad.L YAA/U M ALl-I NONCOMf0AaslM3 CONOiflON D u.x to tat twin in Ahewn of QA /aC Rt.sonn z&
y hr Ju. spic ion of tnHn,c.br w u>lliL1 ArArinins 6
Op/de f:a.n c +1a n <
tar Qu.n1.it3 of An Y Zrenn.S m
In.spictz.0 on Reuit and S.y Q A/6C Av.connzL wHo HAuf OtrA trRthinAtrd fon A.bru & RtlAtr.b g
CNAc&L Btcoint.s 2ndt tf2 h o/1 A+4.
g
=,
5 a.
NM *' [NA $ )$ A &Cr1CflC N.'$.
I I
e mEV m&RA REFEmENCE COCUMfNT' f /a 4 6,, $*?/ h r d Go$$sb
' ~
s D
CE MEVIEWIAp*40 VAL 4*(;GARTdM47d As.
0 ACTION ACQ4t$$gg 4
A Uan e, Ot$mCSitioN.
mEWOmg RE84'm
- USE A S 13 _ _
50AAP ill Nm i
a i
2 l
9 l
j U
i o A f g.
ENG. meyttwrammaovAi, I
o lE Atview AsmonovAI.;
OATE.6 g
i o,
DATie i
O I OISPOSITION vt>tiricAfion a c:.C3uat.
/!
l t
couutNT3.
l i
t I
0 e
o e
O ATTACHMENT B See also the following examples of pleadings which have given CASE's preliminary assessments (some of which may change) on various aspects in these procedings:
CASE's 1/17/85 Supplement to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition re Local Displacement and Stresses CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of new and significant information and CASE's supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 motions and answer to Applicants' motion for summary disposition regarding stability of pipe supports (and CASE's 3/4/85 letter to Board)
CASE's 4/13/85 letter to Board re Clarification of CASE's position on codes, re CASE's 8/6/84 Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of Friction Forces in the Design of Pipe Supports with Small Thermal Movements CASE's 5/13/85 Answer to Applicants' Proposed CASE Management Plan CASE's 6/24/85 Board Notification and CASE's Motion re HAC Report CASE's 7/29/85 Initial Response to Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Management Views and Management Plan for Resolution of all Issues CASE's 8/19/85 Offer of Proof of Lack of Independence of Applicants' Latest Plan (CPRT Plan)
CASE's 8/26/85 Additional Information re:
CYGNA's Independence CASE's 9/21/85 letter to NRC's Noonan re Jack Doyle response to Applicants' 8/30/85 letter to Noonan re Whether or not it is otandard practice of CP Pipe Support design organizations to use the increased allowables (NF 3231.1(a), 3 times the stress limit of XVII-2000), even when friction loading is included in the loading combinations CASE's 12/19/85 Response to Applicants' 11/12/85 Changes to Affidavits in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition [as corrected by 1/6/86 letter)
CASE's 8/18/86 letter to Board (handed out at 8/18/86 prehearing conference re NRC Staff Response to CASE's Proposed Schedule for Hearings (why CASE believes Staff has misused Summary Disposition process, with attachments) 1
o r
B 1
I CASE's 9/18/86 letter to Charles M. Trammell under Subject oft Proposed FSAR revisions resulting from Stone & Webster piping requalification program (discussed at 8/28/86 NRC Staff / Applicants meeting held in Bethesda) - advising that CASE's position is that these extensive FSAR changes constitute an amendment to the construction permit, etc.
CASE's 11/4/86 Response Concerning the Present Role of CYGNA CASE's 12/30/86 Partial Response to Applicants' 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns (as corrected by CASE's 12/31/86 and 1/5/87 letters to the Board) f i
Various other discovery pleadings (interrogatories and requests for documents, motions to compel, responses to Applicants' potions for protective orders, informal communications by CASE with Applicants, etc.),
I as well as other pleadings, have also presented CASE's position on some aspects of these procedings.
i 1
t l
l 1
4 4
i 1
2 l
I
n O
e l
0
'1( a f it 9 :.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6Fi BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOAffY'h;[
1 In the Matter of
}{
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, eti _al.
}{
and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT have been sent to the names listed below this 17th day of Fe bruary,19 8, 7_,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Hall elsewhere.
Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
& Reynolds Washington, D. C.
20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. hizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Butiding 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter !!. 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 1
[
e O
Chairman Renea Hicks, 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 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roissan, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N.
W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plasa Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Tenas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderaan Lenny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C.
20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David H. Bolt 2012 5. Folk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Couneil Vice President
& Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Tenas 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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coussission 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 Midwest office 94111-5894 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Mark D. Nosette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Wright & Talisman, P. C.
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
1050 Seventeenth St., N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D. C.
20036-5566 Washington, D. C.
20007
$ 1.A ~. s Yr= -
fL ',
(M /T Juanita Ellis, President C SI (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1 26 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2