ML20213F605
| ML20213F605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1986 |
| From: | Gad R, Tyler T ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1469 OL, NUDOCS 8611140331 | |
| Download: ML20213F605 (17) | |
Text
c-
/ '-/ h f Filed:
November p 1986.
@5N gELAIED CO L
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ED Og[lg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFIE ?
00CKlithu WTA Bid,HC t
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-0 b TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
50-446-Op COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
.)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
__________________________________)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE CPRT PROGRAM PLAN INTERROGATORIES (Set No.
7)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
sec. 2.740 ff.,
the Applicants hereby submit their responses to CASE's "CPRT Discovery -
Set No.
7,"
served by ordinary mail on September 16, 1986.
Instructions The Applicants have ignored the instructions contained in the paragraphs labelled "A" through "F,"
inclusive, as contained in the document entitled "CPRT Discovery Instructions" under the heading " Instructions" (pages 7-10), insofar as the same are contrary to the Rules of Practice.
Design By agreement of the parties, and with the concurrence of the Board, mntters regarding the adequacy of design aspects of the CPRT Program Plan have been excluded from 8611140331 861104 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR DSo3
}
the matters in respect of which the Board authorized discovery on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Consequently, the Applicants have limited their answers to these interrogatories to matters other than the design adequacy aspects of the CPRT Program Plan.
Interrogatories Interrogatory No.
1:
Explain in precise detail how the CPRT program will insure that all potential specific deviations or deficiencies existing in the plant will be identified if programmatic deviations or deficiencies are only prospective in nature (p. 1).
Annwor.
The structure of this question makes it difficult to respond as presented.
The CPRT does not have a goal of "insur[ing] that all potential specific deviations" have been detected.
The goal of t he program is to provide reasonable assurance that there remain no undetected, uncorrected deficiencies.
It is not necer.sary to detect 100% of the potential deviations in order to achieve this goal.
Hence, the question founders on an erroneous premise.
Programmatic deviations and deficiencies are not defined in Program Plan, Appendix E, as "only prospective in nature."
In fact, where perceived programmatic deviations and deficiencies will be identified is in
_ g_
connection with an assessment of construction or design activities.which occurred in the past.
We suspect that the confusion evidenced in this question lies in the failure of its author to distinguish (or at least to articulate a distinction) between the 1
detection and identification of deviations and
+
deficiencies, on the one hand, and the prescription of corrective action, on the other.
By definition, all corrective action for. inadequacies in programs must be 4
prospective in nature, since one cannot modify a program retroactively.
In the case of programmatic deficiencies (a set of deviations that has been determined to constitute an adverse trend that is programmatic in nature), corrective action includes alteration of the program in question so as to prevent recurrence in the future of detected failures of the past.
(It should also be noted that all identified 0
hardwnre deviations will be forwarded to the CPSES project for tracking through the appropriate Project non-i i
conformance processes, which will insure such retrospective correction of hardware as may be required.)
Interroratorv No. 2:
Explain in precise detail how the CPSES project will define the corrective action for each ISAP/DSAP and the issues identified by the self-initiated evaluation (pp. 1-2).
)
Objection:
4,
d i
m v
v v
- n ~
+n
.-r n-,----w,---
n--,---,--~m-+m---r----,
,v m n-, men,--<r-n w w. -vw-e vem.ms so - v nm e m e m--e - e - -ae--,--r-voe~e--
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that how the project accomplishes the development 4
of a proposed project action in order to present it to the RTL and the SRT for concurrence is not a subject addressed in the CPRT Program Plan and not a matter relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the subject for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
1 Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, please see Project procedures CP-QP-lG.0, CP-QP-lG.3, CP-QP-17.0, CP-QAP-17.1, DQP-QA-ll, and TNE-AD-5.
Copies of all of these were provided to CASE's representative on May 29, 1986, with the exception of DQP-QA-11, which was provided in the April 5, 1984, response to Interrogatory Set 19.
Interrogatory No. 3:
List all of the " categories of deviations" that must l
be acceptable to the CPRT for corrective action (P. 2).
I Answer:
Each safety-significant deficiency identified by the CPRT; Each programmatic devintion or programmatic deficiency identified by the CPRT; Each design deviation identified by the CPRT that involves a failure to meet FSAR criteria or commitments, other licensing commitments, or the,
- + -
,...-.,-.--y-3
-..-....,.-~-w,.,.sm.,,. ~. _, - - - -.
,.--,.,-m,-,,.,.
regulations; and Each deviation identified by the CPRT that has been determined by the CPSES Project to meet the reportability criteria set forth in 10 CFR section 50.55(e).
Please see Program Plan, Appendix H, at 2.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Describe the factors considered in determining to what extent there will be any third party overview of the actual implementation of the CPSES corrective action plan (p. 2).
Answer:
No exhaustive list of such factors can be given until the program has been completed.
However, as a general matter the determination of whether CPRT oversight of corrective action is required, and, if so, the duration of such oversight, is a judgment that will be made by the RTI.
(who may delegate this task, subject to his supervision, to the IC), subject to the review and approval of the SRT, upon such factors as are relevant to attainment of the goals set forth in Program Plan, Appendix H, at 4 ff.
(section C).
Interrogatory No. 5:
Identify the procedure through which the RTL ensures that all deviations and deficiencies identified during their respective investigatory activities are (p. 2):
a.
documented by the CPRT.
4 b.
evaluated and classified by the CPRT.
... _. ~._
t c.
trended by-the CPRT.
d.
transmitted to the CPSES project for nonconformance processing.
Answer:
For each Action Plan, please see the the Program Plan (including Appendices), the Action Plan, and one or more.of i
the following:
Program Plan sec. III.F.
V, VIII.B.3 and appendices A, B,
E, F,
G and H; PAG-08; CPP-000, -010, -016 and -017.
Interronntory No.
C:
Identify the person (s) responsible for performing 10 CFR 50.55 (e) reportability evaluations for deviations or deficiencies (p. 2).
(if there is a different individual (s) for each technical discipline, include that information i n your answer.)
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of t he CPRT Program Plan, and therefore -is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 198G.
j Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, discharge of the obligations imposed upon Construction Permittees by 10 CFR section 50.53(e) is the responsibility of the CPSES i
project, not CPRT.
See Program Plan, Appendix H, at 2.
! 4 s
1 i
l
~, _
,. -.., _ -.-.., _.-.-. _. _. -,,,.,m._ __ _ __
_ _ - _. _. ~.,... _. _.. _
f Interrogatory No. 7:
J Identify the procedures or describe in precise detail 4
the process through which the CPRT RTL obtains concurrence in the CPSES project defined corrective actions.
Answer:
i concurrence is "obtained" by the RTL considering the proposed corrective action and making a judgment about its sufficiency, subject to review and approval by SRT.
The
" process" is analytical.
Interrogatory No. 8:
There are four categories of deficiencies and/or deviations on page 2 of Appendix H for which the CPSES l
project is responsible for obtaining CPRT-RTL concurrence.
Do these categories cover the entirety of
-failures to meet original commitments, regardless of whether or not it is a safety-significant deficiency or programmatic deviation deficiency?
a.
If the answer is no, explain what other categories 4
of information or findings obtained by the CPRT do not have to have corrective action approved by the-CPRT.
I b.
If the answer is yes identify into which category l
the construction " boo boo" (see CPRT Discovery-4, j.
Q.2) is proccused.
I Answer:
f No.
The four entegories referenced in this question do not fully envelope all possible instances that could be interpreted as constituting a failure to meet original licensing commitments.
A hypothesized example of such an instance could be that an applicant might have committed in its FSAR to a particular IEEE Standard, either directly by i
7-t i
i
reference to the Standard or indirectly by reference to a Regulatory Guide that referred to the Standard.
By not taking an explicit exception to any of the detailed provisions of the IEEE Standard, it could be reasonably construed that the applicant has accepted all of the detailed provisions as licensing commitments.
It is possible, for example, that one of these provisions may address " labelling" requirements, for the purpose of identifying installed hardware, such as cable, a cable tray termination, or a cable tray.
Accordingly, a specific instance of a failure to provide such labelling for a specific hardware component could be considered as a failure to meet a licensing commitment.
Such instances are unlikely to be classified within the "four categories" (i.e.,
those that require further third-party involvement in the definition and implementation of corrective nction) due to their lack of safety significance.
However, such instances would be identi fied to the CPSES Project a +2 d processed by the Project through its procedures for dispositioning non-conforming conditions.
It should be noted that the purpose of the definition of the four categories in Appendix H is to ensure that the third party is approrpriately involved in the disposition of those non-conforming conditions that are likely to have
- 8
i a bearing on the ability of CPRT to reach conclusions in accordance with its assigned mission.
Insofar as this interrogatory employs the term " boo-
. boo," please see our answer-to Interrogatory No. 2 of "CPRT Discovery - Set No.
4."
Interragatory No. 9:
Describe in precise detail the process by which an RTL obtains SRT approval prior to recommending proposed corrective action.
Answer:
SRT approval of RTL action is obtained by SRT approval of a Results Report containing such corrective action recommendations or by presenting the proposed action at a meeting of the SRT.
Interrogatory No. 10:
In regard to the confirmatory overviews of the CPRT of the implementation of the corrective actions, provide the methodology (i.e.,
procedures or description of the process):
n.
for each of the activities listed on pp. 5-6 of Appendix H.
b.
for each CPRT-identified design deficiency.
c.
that the design documentation properly reflects the implementation of the corrective action.
d.
that the site documentation properly reflects the as-built and revised design documentation.
e.
that the design documentation properly reflects the implementation of corrective action.
_ g_
1 1
T.
that the documentation that demonstrates the as-built condition of the plant is in conformance with the revised design documentation.
g.
that the corrective actions are adequate for any design deviations reportable under 50.55(e).
h.
that the CPSES project policies, programs, and implementing procedures or instructions relating to design activities have been changed to reflect the programmatic revisions.
Answer:
Insofar as this interrogatory addresses the Design Adequacy Program, please see the statement above under
" Design."
hith respect to other Action Plans, such overview is defined in Program Plan, Appendix H.
In t e rros<n t arv No.
11:
The CPRT program plan states that it will gain
" additional confidence" that the project's implementation of corrective actions through three additional activities identified on pages 6-7 of Appendix H.
Provide the methodology or describe the process in precise detail on how the overview will be accomplished for the corrective actions of:
a.
each CPRT-identified construction deficiency (identify those overviews that will be accomplished by an independent CPRT reinspection, those that will be accomplished through the witnessing by CPRT personnel of the reinspection);
b.
each construction deviation that meets 50.55(e) reportability; c.
the document review of revised policies, programs, and implementing procedures.
Answer:
The question has misread the cited material.
The _-. _ -
~
activities listed on pages 6-7 of Program Plan, Appendix H, are not " additional activities."
They are, rather, the I
implementation of the activities listed on page 4 as applicable to the quality of construction and construction QA/QC.
Accordingly, please see our responses to the prior interrogatories.
Interrogatory No. 12:
1 The CPRT program plan states that it will gain additional confidence regarding implementation of corrective action for preoperational and startup testing through activities listed and described in pages 7-8 of Appendix II.
For each of the activities listed, provide the methodology through which the CPRT will perform its confirmatory activities for:
a.
the CPRT review of testing programs documentation for each specific CPRT-identified deficiency; b.
the CPRT review of testing program deviations reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e);
c.
the CPRT review of the revised procedures, policies, j
and programs for each CPRT-identified programmatic deviation or deficiency.
Annwer:
Plear.c see our response to Interrogatory No. II, suprn.
Interrogntory No. 13:
i 1
Identify the procedures or process used to determine if the CPRT agrees or disagrees with any decision to remove corrective actions from the specific overview activities outlined in Appendix II.
i Answer:
I Please note thnt the question misrends the cited 11 -
i
,, - =. -
e 1
material, which refers not to " removal" but to substitution.
The judgment will be made by SRT by a
{
reviewing any proposal brought to it by the RTL.
The
" process" is analytical.
4 Interrogatory No. 14:
Explain in detail how the CPRT receives, evaluates, and integrates into ongoing and completed work the results of inspections conducted by the CpSES project personnel on rework and ongoing work at Units 1 and 2.
Answer:
i We are uncertain how this relates to Appendix H and i
j corrective actions, and therefore find the question i
difficult to respond to.
In general, overview of corrective actions associated with CPRT-identified
[
deviatione, or deficiencies requiring corrective actions is i
l accomplished by following the procedures set forth in Program Plan, Appendix H, and the procedures cited in the i
response to Interrogatory No. 5, supra.
The adequacy of other ongoing CPSES Project work is or has been viewed a fully represented in the populations being re-inspected i
i pursuant to Action Plan VII.e.
Interrogatory No. 15:
{
Produce for inspection and copying all documents identified in the answers to these questions and all documents' examined or relied upon in preparation of the i
answers to these questions.
L Answer:
4 l ;
}
i l
i I
e e..,
,--.,4
,. w, v.wy m
,- ~ w_
,~,m.,,-m._,r,._
.._w,-,_vm_..~-,
.I t is not believed that any documents of which copies have not already been produced for inspection by CASE are so described.
Nonetheless, the Applicants will produce for inspection and copying, at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas, at a time to be mutually agreed upon by counsel or other representatives of the parties, any document specifically identified by CASE of which it has not already had an opportunity to inspect.
Motion for protective Order To the extent required by the Rules of Practice, the Applicants move for a protective order on the objections interposed in the foregoing responses.
i i
- 13
d SIGNATURES I,
Terry G.
Tyler, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that I am the "rogram Director of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") (see " Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan," 6/28/85), that I am familiar with the information contained in the CPRT files and available to CPRT third-party personnel, that I have assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answers, and that the foregoing answers are true, except insofar as they are based on information that is available to Texas Utilities or the CPRT (third-party personnel) but not within my personal knowledge, as to which I, based on such information, believe them to be true.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _A_h Terry Tyle Sworn to before me this
_jh__ day of ec? bar, 1986:oJembeg .i s ~ N_ o ary Public My commission expires: _[_Qkt _O__________ 4 As to Objections: - 14
- - =. -... 4 4 t l' 1 4 / j .2 m _ 1------ l Thomas G. Dign n, Jr. R. K. Gad III j William S. Eggeling Kathryn S. Selleck I Ropes & Gray 225 Frankling Street l Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l . Telephone: (617) 423-6100 1 i i I. i e 1 i i t t i k 1 i i i i f v i i } l ' i i l I i
rtLLATED CORRESPONDENCE DOL 6ETL: E NPC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 86 NOV 12 Pl2:29 0FRL:.-V.. u-, I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys for08:he Applicants 7 BhhNm herein, hereby certify that on November 1986, I made service of 1 the within " Applicants' Answers to CASE CPRT Program Plan Interrogatories (Set No. 7)" by mailing copies thereof, postage lll-Peter B, Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins prepaid,,.to: l l l Chairman Resident Inspector l Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S. Atomi::-Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Nancy Williams ' Administrative Judge Cygna Energy Services, Inc. o -881 W. Outer Drive 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 San Francisco, California 94111 Chairman. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ccmmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stdart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE ~ Lecel Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 L Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 f I j I t I f i l
o Y Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Executive Director Christic Institute Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1324 North Capitol Street 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esq. Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Maryland National Bank Bldg. Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Billie P. Garde Midwest Office 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 -]: i Robert K. afi III ,}}