ML20214J740
| ML20214J740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214J744 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#386-327 OL, NUDOCS 8608150156 | |
| Download: ML20214J740 (13) | |
Text
m MILU Wim%
g sg D
ED BEFORE THE
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 AUS 14 20:i1 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (FFICr ar i n r. 3ay In the Matter of
)
T7Q{f
,it r
)
TEXAS OTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dk t. Nos. 50-445-OL et al.
)
50-446-OL
~
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CASE FROGRESS REPORT (I)
Pursuant to the Board's Order of June 6, 1986, CASE submits this first progress report.
As disclosed in more detail below, CASE has not been able to make substantial progress in completing its analysis of TUEC's efforts to identify and correct previously unacknowledged problems with design, construction, and inspection due largely to the continued use of discovery stifling techniques by TUEC and the stonewalling of co-owners Tex-La and Texas Municipal Power Authority (TMPA).
The tactics of the latter two will be discussed in CASE's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Compel to be filed later this week.
We will not recount here what the Board and parties fully understand is the context within which this pleading is filed.
It is suf ficient for the present moment to note (1) TUEC concedes that design probelms identified by CASE in 1983 and confirmed by this Board in its December 28, 1983, decision are not scheduled to be resolved by TUEC (much less by the Staf f, CASE, or the Board) until the end of 1987, and (2) that problems identified by i
whistleblowers in the QA/QC program (many of whom were fined or 3scr
forced to resign because TUEC refused to listen to their concerns), which the TRT confirmed in reports issued in late 1984 and early 1985, forced TUEC to suspend hearings and commence the CPRT (which will not be completed before the end of 1986 and review of which by the Staff, CASE, or this Board will not be completed until long after that).
In short, we are essentially looking at a new operating license application, which is being filed in dribs and drabs on a schedule designed and manipulated by TUEC.
CASE's ability to conduct meaningful reviews of this new operating license application is inhibited not only by the discovery tactics of TUEC and two of its partners, but also by the illogical order in which the material is being produced and apparently the illogical order in which the work is being conducted.
For instance, ISAP I.a.3 relating to one small part of the butt splicing issue has been produced.
ISAPs I.a.2 and VII.c. are also related to butt splicing issues, but they have not been completed or released.
It is difficult to intelligently review the I.a.3.
report and its documents outside the context of the entire butt splicing issue and difficult to retain continuity of review or reviewers when months may pass between the first ISAP review and the last ISAP review related to butt splicing.
Despite all these problems, CASE has made considerable progress, as discussed below.
2
S I.
Discovery Progress on discovery is well documented in the numerous motions for protective orders filed by TUEC and its partners Tex-La and TMPA and by the outstanding and soon to be filed motions to compel.
Attached to this pleading is a detailed discussion of the problems CASE is encountering in attempting to locate, review, and copy those items that are being produced.
The CASE milestones for discovery are impossible to set because at present there is no rational and predictable process in place to assure CASE access to documents produced in conjunction with the relevant issues in this proceeding.
It is possible to identify categories of documents being sought:
1.
Documents relevant to Applicants' history of dealing with specific problems now being addressed by Applicants both within and outside the CPRT.
This includes co-owner's documents; contractors', subcontractors', and consultants' documents; and TUEC incernal communications.
Most of this data is tied up in I
objectionc.
2.
Documentation of the existence and extent of problems at the plant identified subsequent to January 1, 1984 Much of this data has been produced in voluminous files at several locations at the plant in Glen Rose but access to it is severely hampered by conditions identified in the attachment to this pleading.
l 3.
Inforr ation regarding the status of the design review, including the role of Cygna, Stone & Webster, and others and their relationship to the CPRT, and documents related to the ongoing and completed design reviews.
The first responsec to this discovery (with the usual objections and motions for 3
l
I I
protective order) were filed recently and motions to compel and answers to the protective order are due on August 27 (per CASE extension request).
4.
Information regarding the CPRT process and its generic and inherent flaws related to other than design issues.
Some evidentiary depositions are still required but these could be completed (barring objections) within the next two months.
Following that, requests for admissions could be ready within four weeks assuming no intervening hearings.
5.
Discovery related to results reports being released by TUEC are discussed in detail in the attachment to this progress report.
1 6.
Discovery of the Staff is essentially halted due to the 4
.i l
Staff decision to require compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR $32.720(h) and 2.744 as a prerequisite to further discovery.
Many outstanding FOIA requests by the Government Accountability Project relating to issues relevant here are unanswered and require perfecting appeals and court challenges.
This work has all been on hold for the lact three months due to the absence ol' l
l Ms. Garde, who returns on August 18.
7.
Evidentiary depositions and requests for admissions are too far off to provide any sensible estimate except with respect to CPRT adequacy.
l j
4
i I
i II.
Document Review The results of CASE'o initial review of ISAP I.a.4. have already been released.
Initial reviews of ISAPs I.a.3.
and I.b.3. should be released by the end of August.
Review of other ISAPs and other documents a) ready produced by TUEC is dependent on the resolution of the problems identified in the attachment.
Unlike TUEC, the progress of CASE's work is not in CASE's hands.
It is to a large extent in the handc of TUEC and it co-owners, contractors, subcontractors, and consultants.
III.
Documents of Particular Interest With respect to the design issues, CASE has made a preliminary analysis of the documents of particular interest to it based upon its present work and without in any way limiting the scope or type of such documents in the iuture.
No such analysis can now be prepared with respect to other OL issues at this time.
The normal procedure would not require a responding party to identify documents until the party with the burden of proof had produced its case.
That has yet to occur.
I l
l l
5
At this point in time, CASE is still in the process of attempting to obtain discovery, reviewing documents being provided on discovery, and awaiting additional necessary information as to Applicants' reviews, analyses, redesign, and reconstruction of Comanche Peak.
With regard to design in particular, it is difficult at this time for CASE to identify with specificity which documents we may rely on in the future.
However, there are some to which we can already call the Board's attention:
50.55(e) Reports Applicants identified some of the potentially reportable items under 10 CFR 50.55(e) (rages 1 and 2 attached to Applicants' 7/30/86 Annotated Bibliographies); the items discussed by Applicants were stated to be "During the period of June 6 through July 25, 1986."
CASE is also interested in 50.55(a) items (see, for instance, CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations),Section XXIX, especially pagea XXIX-9 et seq., and Section XXX, especially pages XXX-28 through
-30).
However, CASE's interest is not limited only to the period discussed by Applicants, but throughout the design and construction of the plant.
Although it is not complete (in that it does not cover all the time frames of interest to CASE), we call the Board's attention to the two pages which follow (Appendix 8-A, SDAR INDEX-07/01/86, attached to Applicants' 7/28/86 Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order); we are attaching the two pages here for the convenience of the Board.
CASE anticipates that Applicants will supplement their listing to cover the period after 07/01/86, and CASE will be pursuing this matter further.
6
A: endix 5-A SDAR INDEX-07/01/86 g.
SUBJECT DETEP3. STM,;g 85-01 MAIN CONTROL SOARD CABLE SEPARATION VIOLATION NR TXX-4411 85-02 CABLE SPREAD ROOM FIRE PROTECTION-3 HR BARRIER NR TXX-441c 85-03 STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS R
TXX-4415 85-04 CONTAINMENT SPRAY HEADER ISOLATION VALVES R
TXX-4437 85-05 DG ENGINE CONTROL PANEL AIR FILTER BOWLS R
TXX-4428 85-06 ERF COMPUTER TERMINATION POINTS NR TXX-4447 85-07 ELECTRICAL CABLE BUTT SPLICES NR TXX-4490 85-08 SUMP ISOLATION VALVE MOTORS NR TXX-4481 85-09 VALVE WEIGHT DISCREPANCIES NR TXX-4473 85-10 RELIANCE CONTROL BOARD EQ DOCUMENTATION NR TXX-4523 85-11 INSTRUMENTATION TUBE FITTING LOCATIONS R
TXX-4454 85-12 AFW PRESSURE CONTROL-FEED WATER LOW FLOW TO S/G R
TXX-4456 85-13 UNDETECTED FAILURE IN SAFETY FEATURES ACT.SYS.
R TXX-4457 85-14 UNAUTHORIZED SUPPORT REPAIRS R
TXX-4465 85-15 EQUIPMENT HATCH UNIT 1 UNEVAL. BEARING FORCES NR TXX-4460 l
85-16 PHOENIX STEEL-PART 21 WALL THICKNESS QUESTION NR TXX-4505 3
85-17 PART 21-CORE EXIT TEMPERATURE MONITORING ERRORS NR TXX-4485 l
85-18 SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE ANCHORS IN THE PROXIMITY OF EMBEDDED ANGLED NOT DEFINED R
TXX-4492 j
'85-19 CONDUIT SUPPORT SPANS P*
10/21/86 i
85-20 WHIP INIERACTION POSSIBLE-FW BREAK /CS HEADERS R
TXX-4516 l
85-21 DG POTENTIAL CONTROL PANEL OVERHEATING NR TXX-4493 85-22 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES NR TXX-4575 i
85-23 CONTAIFMENT SPRAY PUMP NR TXX-4563
(
85-24 TERMINATION OF FIRE DETECTION DETECTORS NR TXX-4533 85-25 SEQUENCING FIRE PROT. COMPONENTS FOR HVAC/CCW NR TXX-4578 C5-26 UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT EMBEDMENT DESIGN P*
08/15/86 85-27 SEISMIC GAP LESS THAN DESIGN-CPRT ITEM II.C R
TXX-4650 85-28 PIPE SUPPORTS WELD LENGTH ANALYSES NR TXX-4550 l
85-29 DESIGN OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES R
TXX-4552 i
85-30 SWITHGEAR CABINET VENDOR TERMINATION NR TXX-4598 l
85-31 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SUPPORT SYSTEM DESIGN P*
10/21/86 85-32 FEEDWATER REG VALVE SINGLE POWER SUPPLY NR TXX-4600 85-33 NON-SEISMIC TO SEISMIC INTERACTION NR TXX-4577 85-34 CONDUIT SUPPORT SYSTEM P*
10/21/86 85-35 CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN P*
10/21/86 85-36 TRAIN
'C' CONDUIT SUPPORTS P*
07/03/86,
85-37 QUALIFICATION /CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECTORS R
TXX-4569 85-38 CONTROL BOARD SEPARATION MATERIAL NR TXX-4715 85-39 EQUIPMENT CONDUIT INTERFACE P*
08/15/86 85-40 FLUX MAPPING SEAL TABLE RESTRAINTS R
TXX-4633 85-41 COMPUTER PROGRAM ERRORS NR TXX-4716 85-42 CONDUIT LOADING BY THERMOLAG P*
10/21/86 85-43 QUALIFICATION OF PLANT TEMPERATURES R
TXX-4659 85-44 QUALIFICATION OF 480V SWITCHGEAR P*
07/17/86 l
85-45 REBAR DAMAGE NR TXX-4761 85-46 DAMAGE STUDY EVAL. OF W ANALYZED PIPING R
TXX-4658 85-47 USE OF AMPTECTOR IIA RELAYS NR TXX-4682 85-48 DG INTAKE SILENCER INTERNALS NR TXX-4683 85-49 MAIN STEAM LINE FLUID TRANSIENT R
TXX-4656 8S-50 CABLE TRAY TEE FITTINGS P*
10/21/86 85-51 APPLICATION OF I4W SULPHUR CONTENT A588 STEEL NR TXX-4722 85-52 CABLE TRAY HANGER REVERIFICATION PROGRAM R
TXX-4657 85-53 ADEQUACY OF SEISMIC CATEGORY II PLATFORMS P*
07/30/86 85-54 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF HVAC SUPPORTS P*
09/26/86 1995: 54 TOTAL SDARS--17 REPORTABLE 12 POTENTIAL
SDAR INDEX-07/01/86 g.
SUBJECT DETERM. STA7 yg 86-01 WEIDMULLER TERMINAL BLOCKS NR TXX-W 86-02 TURBINE-DRIVEN AFW PUMP PERFORMANCE NR TXX-4723 86-03 CLASS 1E INSTRUMENT TECHNIQUES R
TXX-4692 86-04 RICHMOND INSERTS TO EMBEDDED PLATE p*
o7/18/86 86-05 SAFETY CLASS PIPE SUPPORTS MOUNTED TO NSS EMBEDDED PLATE NR TXX-4776 86-06 PUMP AND DRIVER DOWELING NR TXX-4704 86-07 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM LEAKAGE R*
07/30/86 86-08 SUPER HILTI-KWIK BOLT INSTALLATIONS P*
08/15/86 86-09 DG INLET / EXHAUST VALVE SPRINGS NR TXX-4724 86-10 ELECTRICAL PENETRATION ASSEMBLIES R*
07/22/86 86-11 PUMP IMPELLER LINEAR INDICATIONS R*
09/23/86 86-12 COMMODITY INSTALLATIONS AT SEC. WALL DESIGN GAP P*
07/21/86 86-13 JET IMPINGEMENT LOAD REVIEW P*
07/03/86
[
86-14 6.9KV SWITCHGEAR BREAKER WELD FAILURE P*
07/29/86 l
86-15 DIESEL GENERATOR CONTROLS P*
07/18/86 86-16 FIRE EFFECTS ON INSTRUMENT TUBING P*
09/05/86 l
86-17 MINIMUM CONCRETE COVERAGE P*
09/05/86 86-18 SAFETY CHILLED WATER CHILLER UNITS R*
07/24/86 86-19 PRESSURE INSTRUMENT INSTAI1ATIONS R*
07/30/86 86-20 WFI NUCLEAR PRODUCTS NR TXX-4870 86-21 QUALIFICATION OF RAYCMEM KIT NPKS-02-01 P*
07/16/86 86-22 SG'S AREA FAN COOLERS P*
07/14/86 86-23 P-10 PERMISSIVE R
TXX-4835 86-24 SPACE AND MOTOR HEATERS P*
09/05/86 86-25 BREAKER / FUSE COORDINATION P*
07/22/86 86-26 CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM PIPING NR TXX-4799 86-27 CCW RADIATION DETECTORS NR TXX-4800 86-28 SERVICE WATER SYSTEM DISCHARGE NR TXX-4801 86-29 ACCEPTANCE TEST OF AIR OPERATED VALVES NR TXX-4802 86-30 UPS INVERTERS P*
08/15/86 86-31 DG LUBE OIL SUMP TANK FOOT VALVES P*
08/22/86
(
86-32 THRU-WALL EBMEDDED CONDUIT SLEEVES P*
07/24/86 l
86-33 STIFFNESS VALUES FOR CLASS 1 STRESS ANALYSIS P*
08/22/86 86-34 DEFECTIVE FIRE STOP INSTAI1ATIONS P*
08/15/86 86-35 MOTOR OPERATORS FOR MANUAL VALVES R*
07/21/86 86-36 PIPE SUPPORTS R*
08/13/86 86-37 CLASS 1E BATTERY CHARGER COMPONENTS P*
07/16/86 86-38 TRACEABILITY OF 1E PIGTAIL EXTENSIONS P*
07/21/86 86-39 CABLE TRAY "C-TYPE" CLAMP SHIM DIMENSIONS P*
10/21/86 86-40 APPLICATION OF NON-QUALIFIED AGASTAT RELAYS P*
08/15/86 86-41 SMALL I4CA MODE 4 OPERATION P*
08/13/86 86-42 IEC CABINET POWER SUPPLY BREAKERS P*
07/30/86 86-43 ITT BARTON MODEL 580 SERIES SWITCHES P*
07/03/86 l
86-44 WELDED ATTACHMENTS TO EMBEDDED STRIP PLATES P*
07/07/86 86-45 SEISMIC CATEGORY II SYSTEMS & COMPONENTS P*
07/07/86 86-46 GOULD BATTERY RACKS TRANSVERSE BRACING P*
07/11/86 86-47 FIRE PENETRATION SEAL DESIGN P*
07/16/86 86-48 ADEQUACY OF NONCONFORMANCE DISPOSITIONS P*
07/16/86 l
1996: 48 TOTAL SDARS--9 REPORTABLE. 29 POTENTIAL
/
8
Applicants' Responses to CASE's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents:
CASE is still in the process of reviewing both Applicants '
responses to CASE's interrogatories and documents received on discovery; it is difficult at this time to point the Board specifically to such responses which CASE may ultimately rely upon.
However, there are a few specific such items which CASE believes would be of special interest to the Board, and we suggest that the Board might want to review Applicants' response's to the following in their entirety:
Applicants' 7/28/86 Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order --
regarding primarily (though not entirely) design issues.
Applicants' responses to CASE's 7/29/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents -- although Applicants have not yet responded to these interrogatories (and responses are not yet due), CASE believes that Applicants' responses to these interrogatories which deal primarily with issues covered (or not covered) by the Stone & Webster Generic Technical Issues Report of 5/8/86 (copy of which was sent to the Board under cover letter by Applicants dated July 9, 1986) will be of special interest to the Board. /1/
We are also still in the process of reviewing Applicants' various responses to CASE's First through Fifth Sets of Interrogatories Re: Credibility, and the documents connected with those responses.
Although we anticipate that there is much information which we will ultimately rely upon and in which the Board would be especially interested, we have not at this time specifically identified which items these are.
We will attempt to do so in a future Progress Report and/or Annotated Bibliography.
--/1/ We call the Board's attention specifically to Questions 86 through 88 (pages 31-33) of our 7/29/86 Interrogatories, which discuss items not covered by the Stone & Webster Report.
9 i
Cygna Reports, Letters, Telecoms. etc.:
Many of the Cygna documents have already been sent to the Board as Board Notifications to the NRC Commissioners (copies of which were also sent to the Licensing Board); see, for instance, Board Notifications85-043, 85-089, and especially 86-11 dated 3/26/86.
CASE is currently reviewing other information which we have recently received from Cygna and will be reviewing documents supplied by Cygna to Applicants in response to CASE discovery requests.
(The discovery documents are currently presenting a problem for CASE due to the difficulties encountered as to how to get the documents into the hands of Messrs. Walsh and Doyle; this is discussed in more detail elsewhere in CASE's Progress Report.)
Of special significance in CASE's opinion is the August 1, 1986, Cygna letter 84056.103 from Cygna President Richard J. Stuart to TUGC0 President M. D.
Spence (copy of which was sent to the Board, according to Cygna's service list).
CASE suggests that the Board might be interested in again reviewing Board Notification 86-11 dated 3/26/86 in light of the statements made in the Cygna i
letter.
It is ' anticipated that additional significant information will flow from meetings, TUGCO responses, etc., discussed in l'
Cygna's 8/1/86 letter and related documents.
This will be discussed in more detail in future Progress Reports and/or Annotated Bibliographies.
10 1
Stone & Webster Documents:
CASE is still in the process of reviewing two recent documents received from Applicants regarding Stone & Webster's efforts:
(1) The Stone & Webster Generic Technical Issues Report of 5/8/86 (copy of which was sent to the Board under cover letter by Appli-cants dated July 9,1986); CASE has filed some initial interrogatories regarding this Report in our 7/29/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents.
(2) Proj ect Procedure CPPP-7, Rev. 2, April 25, 1986, " Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports;" it appears from the July 29, 1986 cover letter to the Board that only CASE's Mrs. Juanita Ellis in Dallas and Cygna Energy Services, Inc., were sent copies of the Procedure itself and that the rest, of the service list, including the Board, was only sent the cover
. letter and the 7/28/86 letter from Applicants to NRC Staff's Mr.
Noonan.
If this is correct, and the Board does not yet have a copy of this document, CASE suggests that this entire document is one which the Board should also have, since it is such a basic i
document relevant to the entire Stone & Webster effort.
(We also l
suggest that the Board request that Applicants, rather than CASE, supply copies to the Board of this document, which is about 2" thick printed front and back, or about 4" thick if printed only on one side. )
CASE is'still in the process of reviewing this i
document, and has filed no interrogatories to date regarding it.
1 11 i
i
. ~.
r-Other Documents:
Although there are many documents of interest which CASE has reviewed and is reviewing on discovery, we'have not as yet sufficiently completed our review (especially with regard to design matters) to be able to provide the Board with much in the way of helpful listings at this time; however, we will attempt to do so in future Progress Reports and/or Bibliographies.
In addition, many of the documents of interest to CASE have also been supplied to the Board, either directly by Applicants (such as recent SEC Form 8-K filings, responses to NRC Notices of Violation and payment of civil penalties, etc.), the NRC Staff (such as Region IV Inspection Reports and Notices of Violation and Imposition of Civil Penalities, etc.), Board Notifications, etc.
t 12 l
CONCLUSION We are hopeful that, as a result of (1) the upcoming prehearing conference, (2) changes in the Applicants' manner of dealing with discovery, and (3) a change of heart on the part of the Staff, our next progress report will be mucn more specific about dates by which discrete tasks will be completed.
Respectfully submitted,
~ p*p
~
m KNTHONYZyROTSMAN Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 ? Street, NW, #611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE
'k VM JU TA ELLIS C'
1426 S.
Polk Dallas, TX 75224 (214) 946-9446 Representative for CASE l
Dated:
August 11, 1986 l
I l
l l
13 l
.