ML20237K073
| ML20237K073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1987 |
| From: | Weightman D BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237K054 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 8708190080 | |
| Download: ML20237K073 (35) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
Docket No. 50-445-CPA et al.,
)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station Unit 1)
)
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. TO CONSOLIDATED INTERVENERS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION l
OF DOCUMENTS (6/19/87)
Applicant Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
("Brazos") hereby respectfully submits its Responses and Objections to the above-described Interrogatories and Requests.
As discussed in the accompanying letter from counsel appearing specially for Brazos to members of the Board, certain of the responses have been excised as apparently subject to an order staying production in Texas Utilities Electric Co. v. The Honorable John McClellan Marshall, No. 05-87-00887-CU (Ct. App.
5th Sup. Jud. Dist., Dallas) (August 12, 1987).
Interrogatory No. 1 Consolidated Interveners have alleged (Amended Contention 2) that:
The delay in construction of Unit I was caused by Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants.
1.
With regard to that allegation, please specify all instances of any Applicant's " intentional conduct" of which you are aware that would support the allegation.
Response to Interrogator No. 1 87081900B0 B70814 PDR ADOCK 05000445' O
PDRV
,2 -
As TU Electric has informed Brazos that construction of CPSES Unit I was essentially complete prior to August 1,
- 1985, but for activities relating to demonstrating the safety of the plant to itself and to the NRC, Brazos construes questions about causes for " delay in construction of Unit 1" to encompass all
' licensing-related reinspection.and rework that has-taken place since August 1, 1985, when the. construction' permit expired, as well as all conduct which may have prevented the NRC's issuance of an operating license for Unit 1 by that time.
TU Electric 1/ has made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material information to Bra:os.
These acts and omissions may have delayed construction of Unit I by hindering Brazos's fulfillment of its duty to assure the completeness of l
the. factual record and the adequacy of factual responses to discovery in these proceedings, and to bring relevant information to the attention of the presiding Boards or the Commission Staff.
Brazos is also hindered from fulfilling its obligations by threatened litigation by TU Electric should Brazos act to fulfill its responsibilities.
These misrepresentations, non-disclosures, and threats, besides constituting interference with minority owners' obligations to the ASLB, to the parties to these proceedings, and to the NRC, may have delayed completion of CPSES by precluding, slowing, or undermining the NRC's confidence that an operating license should be granted.
Such misrepresentations, 1/
The term "TU Electric," as used in these responses, should be understood to include, wherever appropriate, the Texas Utilities Generating Company, TU Electric's predecessor as Comanche Peak Project Manager.
3-
.c failures to disclose, and threats constitute intentional conduct, which had no valid) purpose and were the result of' corporate L
policies.which have-not been~ discarded or repudiated by TU Electric.
The misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information referred to above-as potentially delaying licensing Land completion of CPSES include, but are not limited to:
1.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the cost, and forecasted-L cost, of CPSES; 2.
. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the schedule for and date of completion of CPSES; I
L 3.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the design of CPSES and the-adequacy.thereof; 4.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the construction'of CPSES l
and the adequacy thereof; L
5.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose l
material information as to TUEC's compliance with applicable regulations; 6.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to TUEC's adherence to commitments made to the NRC; 7.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the readiness, willingness, and ability of TU Electric to serve as agent of and fiduciaries to its co-owners; 8.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the competence of TU Electric to perform the duties of project manager; 9..
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to tne competence of contractors and subcontractors;
- 10. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the competence of the architect / engineers;
4,_
11'.. Misrepresentations _and failures to' disclose material:informationJas to the viability of CPSES QA/QC programs;
- 12. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the ability of TU Electric to obtain permits and licenses to construct and operate CPSES;
- 13. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the. readiness, willingness and ability of licensing councel to represent the co-owners'before the NRC and in related proceedings; 14.. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the prudence of TU Electric's performance of their duties under the Joint Ownership Agreement; i
15.' Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the skill and workmanship of TU Electric's performance of their services for Brazos and others;
'16.
Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material.information as to the competence of TU Electric ana.other Texas Utilities personnel; and
- 17. Misrepresentations and failures to disclose material information as to the accuracy of statements made by TU Electric to the NRC.
On November 28, 1986, in its Memorandum and Order (Discovery of Tex-La Documents), the ASLB noted that TU Electric's engagement of the law firm of Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge to sue its co-owners " threatens to complicate this case and may require our action in the future."
TU Electric has generally caused licensing counsel to disclaim representation of Brazos, and to refuse to advise and consult
.with Brazos in connection with NRC proceedings.
While the disclaimers had not commenced at the time of the expiration of the Unit 1~ construction permit, it may be that prior activities
)
l
__x___-__--__a
?
- l by l'icensing counsel were affected by a direction by TU Electric 1
1 that.they not fulfill attorney obligations towards the co-owners.
{
l If this is the case, and if the failure of licensing counsel.to
. fulfill their fiduciary obligations to Brazos has led to delay in
. construction of CPSES Unit 1, then such delay was caused by TU Electric's intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by TU Electric.
TU Electric has recently declared, contrary to the CPSES FSAR, that it has not acted as Brazos's agent in licensing matters.
If any breaches of "'i ectric's fiduciary obligations to Brazos have resulted in delay of construction of CPSES Unit 1, then any such delay was caused by TU Electric's intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by TU Electric.
Interrogatory No. 1.a a.
Identify all person (s) who engaged in this intentional conduct.
. Response to Interrogatory No. 1.a
~Brazos believes that all TU Electric and Texas Utilities Services personnel in attendance at owners Committee meetings may be held responsible for intentional misrepresentations 1
and omissions to Brazos.
Licensing counsel who have specifically disclaimed any attorney-client relationship with Brazos include Messrs. Wooldridge, Reynolds, Dignan, and Eggeling.
However, in i
his letter of February 19, 1987 to the Board, Mr. Wooldridge specifically states that "no counsel who have appeared in support of the
)
)
)
license application has or ever'had any 3
attorney / client relationship with any CPSES owner other than TU Electric."
' John Beck has threatened Brazos in an attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its obligations to the NRC Staff and the licensing boards.
Other statements which Brazos construes as threats have appeared in legal pleadings, signed by TU Electric counsel.
TU Electric's
. denial of its agency relationship with Brazos l
is also found in a legal pleading.
i L
Interrogatory No. 1.b b.
Specify the date(s) the conduct took place.
Response to Interrogatory No. 1.b From.1973 to date.
Interrogatory No. 1.c c.
Explain precisely how the conduct caused a delay in construction.of Unit 1.
Response to Interrogatory No. 1.c Brazos cannot at this time precisely identify how TU Electric's misrepresentations, omissions, threats, instructions to licensing-counsel, and disregard for fiduciary obligations to its co-owners might have caused delay in construction of CPSES Unit 1.
' Interrogatory No. 1.d d.
Oite all documents that support your answers to 1.a.,
b.,
and c.
above.
Response to Interrogatory No. 1.d l
l 1
i l
- 7 _
l Documents supporting these contentions include but are not' limited to:
1 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories from Texas Municipal Power Agency, dated April 20, 1987, in Texas Utilities Electric Co.
- v. Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., et al.,
in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 14th Judicial District, Cause No. 86-6809-A.
2.
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant' Motion to compel Production of Documents and Request for Hearing j
on Objections and Motion for Protective Order, dated July 16, 1987, in Texas Utilities Electric Co. v.
Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., et al.,
ln the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 14th Judicial District, Cause No. 86-6809-A.
3.
Correspondence between TUGCO and TU Electric and Brazos 4.
ASLB transcripts; 5.
ASLB pleadings; 6.
CPRT Program Plan Rev.
O, 1,. 2, 3; 7.
ISAP results reports; 8.
SDAR's; 9.
The PSAR;
- 10. The FSAR;
_1 1.
Cygna Review Issues Lists;
- 12. Transcripts of Public Meetings;
- 13. CPSES Project Status Reports;
- 14. Owners' Committee Meeting minutes, and other written information distributed at or through the Owners Committee;
- 15. PSA's;
- 16. Reports prepared by the Management Analysis Corporation;
- 17. Internal TU Electric and TUGCO documents; I
- 18. Internal documents from Brown & Root, Gibbs &
Hill, and other third parties.
L
d 1
19. Owners Committee. Meeting Minutes Interrogatory No. 2.a 2.
What do you know that will shed light on the purpose of Applicant's " intentional conduct?"
a.
State all facts of which you are aware that illustrate that there was no valid purpose for such conduct.
Response to Interrogatory No. 2.a Assuming that the actions described in the answer to Interrogatory No.
1, above, constitute intentional conduct as intended by this Interrogatory, Brazos is conducting discovery-in the state court litigation with respect to the purpose of such actions, and will answer this question when it is able to do so.
Interrogatory No. 2.b 2.
b.
Identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts described in your answer to 2.a.
Response to Interrogatory No. 2.b see the answer to 1.a.,
above.
Interrogatory No. 3 3.
List all the policies of which you are aware that caused or contributed to delay in completion of construction of Unit 1.
With respect to each policy,
[
a.
Identify the person (s) who formulated or promulgated each policy.
b.
Specify, with as much precision as possible ua date(s) upon which policy was formulated oi promulgated.
c.
Specify when each policy was first implemented.
d.
How was each policy implemented?
L
I l.
.9 -
l
(
- Response to Interrogatory No. 3 Insofar'as the TU Electric actions described above may constitute facts -a.sponsive to this question, please refer to the answer to Interrogatory No. I above.
Brazos is conducting discovery in the state court litigation in order to determine more' fully when, how, and by whom the policies underlying these L
actions were formulated and implemented, and expects to 1
supplement this answer as information becomes available.
Interrogatory No. 4 4.
Identify each of the person (s) who are or were at supervisory level or above at the plant for any Applicant, contractor, subcontractor, or consultant after February 1985 who is/are listed in the answer to Interrogatory 3 above, and list all posjtions held by such person (s), by whom he/she was employed, and the dates of such employment since February 1985.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4 Brazos objects to this interrogatory, m it pertains solely to employees of TU Electric, and should properly be directed to TU Electric.
Interrogatory No. 5 5
Identify any action taken or not taken by any Applicant that is relevant to determining whether any of the policies referred to in the answer to Interrogatory 3 have been discarded and repudiated.
For each action or non-action identified, a.
Identify the person (s) who took or failed to take the action.
b.
State when the action or non-action occurred.
c.
Cite all documents that make reference to the action (s) or non-action (s).
Response to Interrogatory No. 5
_ 10 _
'Brazos is conducting discovery in the state court litigation to determine whether TU Electric's misrepresentations and non-disclosures of material information continue.
Certain conduct of TU Electric, directly and through counsel, implies that these acts and conditions p'ersist.
One document material to manyoof these matters is the Response to Defendant' Motion to compel Production of Documents and Request for. Hearing on Objections and Motion for Protective Order, dated July 16, 1987, in Texas Utilities Electric Co. v.
Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., et al.,
in the District Court of Dallas County,
-Texas, 14th Judicial District, Cause No. 86-6809-A.
TU Electric's adherence to its policy of misrepresentation and non-disclosure (with the necessary and foreseeable effect of delay) is evidenced by, inter alia, the description of -
intended uses of the Cresap, McCormick and Paget audit gi in the July 16 pleading, which conflicts with prior descriptions given to its co-owners and to the NRC, Brazos believes that the purpose of the conflicting descriptions is to avoid disclosure of materials relating to the Cresap audit in any forum.
The July 16 pleading also represents the most recent instance of which Brazos is aware wherein TU Electric disclaims any attorney-client relationship between Brazos and licensing counsel, and disclaims any principal-agent relationship with Brazos.
Reference Excised as apparently subject to an order staying production in Texas Utilities Co. v. The Honorable John McClellan Marshall, No. 05-87-00887-CU (Ct. App., 5th Sup. Jud.
Dist., Dallas) (August 12, 1987).
I
" Interrogatory'No. 6 6.
Describe each and every instance of which you are aware in which any Applicant has refused to take positive action to reform the Unit 1 QA/QC program.
For each instance, a.
Define precisely the positive action that was
- refused, b.
Identify the person (s).who deliberately refused to take positive action.
c.
Identify the date on which the deliberate refusal took place.
d.
Describe the manner in which the refusal was made manifest.
e.
Cite all documents that refer or relate to the refusal.
Resoonse to Interrogatory No. 6 As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of. Comanche Peak, the interrogatory does not and cannot refer to'Brazos's actions.
Brazos has no information on i
the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 7 7.
Describe all criticism (s) of the Unit 1 QA/QC program of which you are aware, including the QA/QC program of all contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and vendors.
For each criticism, a.
State the source of the criticism.
b.
Indicate the date(s) the criticism was made.
c.
State whether and how the criticism was communicated to each Applicant.
d.
Identify the person (s) to which the criticism was communicated.
e.
State the date(s) on which the criticism was communicated to each Applicant.
a f.
Cite all documents that indicate the existence of the criticism and all documents that indicate that the criticism was communicated to each Applicant.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7 Insofar as this interrogatory refers to criticisms directed to TU, Electric, TU Electric is obliged under.the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Brazos objects to this interrogatory insofar as it may
' request criticisms which have been communicated directly to Brazos, as distinguished from criticisms relayed to Brazos by TU Electric.
All such criticisms, with the exception of those generated in connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric against Brazos on May 29, 1986, have been provided to TU Electric, which has sole power to take appropriate actions thereupon.
Criticisms contained in reports prepared for Brazos or its counsel in connection with said litigation are privileged and will not be provided absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Brazos intends to comply fully with all disclosure obligations imposed on it as a permittee and license
)
applicant.
Since the initiation of litigation against Brazos by TU Electric, Brazos, through its counsel, has employed experts to evaluate TU Electric's performance of its duties to Brazos.
Privileged materials generated in the course of preparation for this litigation include criticisms of Comanche Peak QA/QC I
p'
- programs.
Brazos objects on grounds of privilege to interrogatories or document requests with respect to these matters absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Reference Excised as apparently subject to an order staying production in Texas Utilities Electric Co. v. The Honorable John Mcclellan Marshall, No. 05-87-00887-CU (Ct. App.,
l I
5th Sup. Jud. Dist., Dallas) (August 12, 1987).
Interrogatory No. 8 8.
List every i'nstance of which you are aware where any Applicant has failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles.
For each instance, a.
'Specify which fundamental engineering principle was not correctly applied.
b.
State the source (s) from which the engineering principle in question is derived.
c.
Identify the person (s) who failed to apply the principle correctly and the date on which the incident occurred.
d.
Cite all documents which document or support your description of the instance.
Response to Interrogatory No. 8 TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak; on no occasion has Brazos applied engineering principles in connection with the construction of Comanche Peak.
With the exceptions described below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is.not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazoss behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
i l
_ 14 _
Experts retained by Brazos, through counsel, in connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29,
'1986, have reached conclusions respecting the application of engineering principles at Comanche Peak prior co the initiation of the CPRT Program Plan.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Insofar as the interrogatory may be construed'to embrace the application of engineering principles by Brazos in contexts unconnected with Comanche Peak, Brazos objects to the interrogatory as overbr oad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 9 9.
List each design not typical for nuclear plants then seeking or already having received construction permits that any Applicant failed to properly identify in the PSAR.
For each of these " unique designs," explain the basis for your conclusion that it was/is not typical.
Resoonse to Interrogatory No. 9 As TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construct!.on, and licensing of Colanche Peak, the interrogatory does not and cannot refer to Brazos's actions.
Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's
. behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 10
l'
- . l l
.10.
List every aspect of the plant of which you are aware
-j that was constructed before its design was completed.
For each aspect, state any principle or requirement of which you are aware which dictates or dictated any different sequence of design and construction from that employed.
Response to Interrogatory No. 10 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this in,terrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which j
is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it-may assert.
In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning the propriety of the sequence of design and construction employed by TU Electric at comanche Peak.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Interrogatory No. 11 11.
List every section of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B,
that any Applicant has not complied with.
For each section
- cited, a.
Explain the precise manner in which the Applicant filed to comply with the specified section.
b.
State the date(s) on which the failure to comply p
took place.
c.
Identify the,3rson(s) who failed to comply.
d.
Cite all documents that document or support the conclusion that the Applicant failed to comply with the specified section.
_mm-___-_
m m_
. Response'to Interrogatory No. 11 As TU Electric is solely responsible'for construction I
and licensing of Comanche Peak, the interrogatory does not and l
cannot refer to.Brazos's actions.
With the exception. described i
1 below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this
-interrogatory that is not in the possession'of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through its counsel, has reta'ined experts who may have reached opinions concerning TU Electric's compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendices A and B.
Brazos i
believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
I Interrogatory No. 12
'i
- 12. List every instance of which you are aware where any Applicant failed to promptly identify design deficiencies.
1
' Response to Interrogatory No. 12 1
As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction i
and licensing of Comanche Peak, the interrogatory cannot and does not refer to Brazos's actions.
Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU i
Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
_ 17 _
Interrogatory No. 13 13.
List every instance of which you are aware where any applicant failed to correct design deficiencies.
. Response'to Interrogatory No. 13 As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak, the interrogatory cannot and does not refer to Brazos's actions.
Brazos has no information on the subject of this' interrogatory that is not in'the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 14 14.
List every instance of which you are aware where any Applicant deliberately refused to take pos~itive action to correct deficiencies in design, construction, or QA/QC procedures or implementation.
Resoonse to Interrogatory No. 14 As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak, the interrogatory cannot and does not refer to Brazos's actions.
Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obl'iged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and-completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 15 15.
List all criticisms of the Unit 1 QA/AC program (including the QA/AC program of any contractors, subcontractors,
- consultants, and vendors) of which you are aware that have not been thoroughly. evaluated in a timely manner and/or for which appropriate corrective actions were not timely taken by any Applicant.
For each of these criticisms, a.
Identify the source of the criticism.
b.
Identify the date the criticism was made.
c.
Describe when and how the criticism was communicated to the Applicant.
d.
Cite all documents which support the existence of the criticism and all documents indicating that the criticism was reported to the Applicant.
e.
Describe and explain the basis for your conclusion that the criticism was.not thoroughly evaluated in a timely. manner and/or that corrective actions were not timely taken.
f.
Was the action or inaction described in 15.e.
deliberate?
If so, state any reason for such deliberate action or inaction of which you are aware, and identify the person (s) who took or refused to take'the action.
Resoonse to Interrogator No. 15 Brazos refers generally to its response to Interrogatory No.
7.
As TU Electric is solely responsible for the design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak, and thus for the timely evaluation of criticisms, the interrogatory cannot and does not refer to Brazos's actions.
With the exceptions noted below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory th't is not in the possession of TU Electric, which a
is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Brazos, with the assistance of experts retained through
. counsel, is investigating TU Electric's actions with regard to
C j
' 1 i
L this interrogatory in connection with litigation commenced by TU
-Electric on May 29, 1986.
Brazos considers the. work product of this investigation to be privileged, and objects to its disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Interrogatory No. 16 16.
Identify all criticisms of the derign of Unit 1 of which you are aware that have not been thoroughly evaluated in a timely manner and/or for which appropriate corrective actions were not timely taken by any Applicant.
For each such criticism, a.
Identify the source of the criticism.
b.
Identify the date the criticism was made, c.
Describe when and how the criticism was communicated to the Applicant.
d.
cite all documents which support the existence of the criticism and all documents indicating that the criticism eco reported to the Applicant.
e.
Describe and explain the basis for your conclusion that the criticism was not thoroughly evaluated in a timely manner and/or that corrective actions were not timely taken.
f.
Was the action or inaction described in 15.e.
deliberate?
If so, state any reason for such deliberate action or inaction of which you are aware, and identify the person (s) who took or refused to take the action.
Response to Interrogatory No. 16 As TU Electric is solely responsible for the design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak, and thus for the timely evaluation of criticisms, the interrogatory cannot and does not refer to Brazos's actions.
With the exceptions noted below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which
is obliged under the-Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Brazos, with the assistance of experts retained through counsel, is investigating TU Electric's actions with regard to this interrogatory in connection with litigation commenced by TU l
Electric on May 29, 1986.
Brazos considers the work product of this investigation to be privileged, and objects to its disclosure absent the' entry of an appropriate protective order.
Interrogatory No. 17 17.
List every warning of which you are aware by independent auditors of the existence of policies or practices at Unit I which'were not in compliance with NRC requirements or accepted practice.
Response to Interrogatory No. 17 TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownerchip Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Bra ca's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning past practices at Comanche Peak.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
- 2; -
Interrogator No. 18 18.
List every warning you are aware by the NRC.of the existence of policies or practices at Unit 1 which were not in compliance-with NRC requirements or accepted practice.
Response to Interrogatory No. 18 As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of-Comanche Peak, no warnings have been directed by theLNRC to Brazos.
Brazos has no information on the subject.of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under.the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which'it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 19 19.
List every warning of which you are aware by the Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board of the existence of policies or practices at Unit I which were not in compliance with NRC requirements or accepted practice.
-Response to Interrogator No. 19 As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak, and has appeared, through counsel, before the ASLB on Brazos's behalf, no warnings have been directed by the ASLB to Brazos other than through TU Electric or licensing counsel reporting to TU Electric.
Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which
.it may assert.
" Interrogatory No. 20 20.
List every' instance of which you are aware where any Applicant, in the face of any warning listed in answer to Interrogatories 17-19 above, refused to make the appropriate and/or recommended changes.
For each such instance, a.
Identify the person (s) who refused to make the change.
b.
State the date of the refusal, c.
Cite all documents that refer or relate to the refusal.
Response to Interrogatory No. 20 TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensing of Comanche Peak.
Brazos is not in any position to make, or refuse to make, appropriate or recommended changes at C?SES.
Insofar as this interrogatory requests information about the actions of TU Electric, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf,. subject to any~
and all proper. objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 21 List every instance of which you are aware where any
. Applicant has refused to addrecs and correct design deficiencies.
For each such instance, a.
Identify the person (s) who refused to make the correction.
b.
State the date of the refusal.
c.
Cite all documents that refer or relate to the refusal.
Response to Interrogatory No. 21 l
i 1
^ TO Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception j
stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory:that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully.
and completely, on Brazos'c behalf, subject to any and all proper I
objections which it.may assert.
In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning design deficiencies and the proper treatment thereof by TU Electric 6.t Comanche Peak.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
s Interrogatory No. 22 22.
List all the deficient conditions at Unit 1 of which you are aware that were not detected until after June 1984.
Response to Interrogatory No. 22
' ?'
TU El'ectric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak. 'With the exception
' stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is. obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to responc fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
l
" i In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning deficient conditions at
' Unit 1 of Comanche Peak.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
Interrogatory No. 23 23.
List all the original judgments made by any Applicant of which you are aware that allowed deficient conditions at Unit 1, to exist and. continue, and identify the person (s)'who made each such judgment.
j Response to Interrogatory No. 23 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf', subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
In connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning deficient conditions at Unit 1 of Comanche Peak.
Brazos believes these opinions to be privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
L Interrogatory No. 24
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
1 f
~
.4 L
i
- 24.
Identify each and every CPRT judgment on the safety significance of a deficiency (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan) that was made by IUEC personnel.
i Response to Interrogator't No. 24 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With che exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully l
and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 25 25.
Identify each and every CPRT judgment on the safety significance of a deviation (as Jefined in the CPRT Program Plan) that was made by TUEC personnel.
Response to Interrogatory No. 25 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no inform & tion on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 26 26.
Identify which CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B.
Response to Interrogatory No. 26
l.,'
h l
L j
r-TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated'below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not'in the possession of TJ Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and-all proper objections which it may assert.
~ Interrogatory No. 27 27.
Do you believe that any of these CP'T reinspection are R
required to comply with Appendix B and, if so, which ones?
If not, why not?
In what way do these reinspection fail to comply with Appendix B?
Response to Interrogatory No. 27 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 28 28.
State each and every way in which CPRT reinspection are impossible of trending.
Response to Interrogatory No. 28 TU' Electric is' solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception
- stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely,'on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 29 29.
State each and every way in which CPRT reinspection are impossiole of' documentation.
Response to Interrogatory No. 29 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception-stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 30 30.
State each and every way in which CPRT reinspection are impossible of verification.
Response to Interrogatory No. 30 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully
- and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
I i
Interrogatory No. 31 31.
a.
How many individuals who are currently or were formerly employed by Stone & Webster during the period June 1986 through the present were former employees of NPS Industries, ITT, Grinnell, Texas Utilities Electric Company or one of its affiliated companies, Gibbs and Hill, or any other of the Applicants or their agents, and worked at any time previously on the Comanche Peak project (either onsite or offsite)?
b.
Provide a list of all such individuals, along with details of the dates they originally worked for the co,mpanies in question, the dates they were hired by Stone & Webster for their assignment to work on Comanche Peak, their current job title and status, and, if they are no longer employed at Comanche Peak, their last known address and telephone number.
Resoonse to Interrogatory No. 31 TU Electric is solely responsible for design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Interrogatory No. 32 32.
a.
How many individuals who are currently or were employed by Applicants or any of their consultants, contractors, subcontractors, or any other companies working on reinspection / reanalysis effort and/or the corrective actions resulting from such effort, during the period August 1985 through the present, were former employees of NPS Industries, ITT, Grinnell, Texas Utilities Electric Company or one of its affiliated
l'.j.
- ' companies,-Gibbs and Hill, or any other of the Applicants or their agents, and worked at any time
-previously_on the Comanche Peak project (either onsite or offsite)?
b.
Provide a list of all such individuals, along with details.of the dates they originally worked for.the companies in question, the dates they were hired for their assignment.to work on Comanche Peak, by whom they were hired, their current job title and status, and, if they are no longer employed at Comanche Peak, their last known address and telephone number.
Response to Interrogatory No. 32 TU. Electric is. solely responsible for. design, construction, and licensing of Comanche Peak.
With the exception stated below, Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint ownership. Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
Document Recuest Please provide, in Washington, D.C.,
or Dallas, Texas, the original of every document in your possession, or in the possession of any consultant, contractor, or subcontractor to you or your attorney (s), on which you relied or which you examined in preparing answers to these Interrogatories.
'The great majority of the documents on which Brazos relies in preparing answers to these interrogatories are documents which are available from the Public Document Room of the NRC, as they were generated in the course of proceedings before the Commission.
Brazos will make available in the law offices of spiegel & McDiarmid in Washington, D.C.
its collection
__A
l
- of NRC documents, although it believes that Consolidated Interveners probably have a more complete' collection of such l
documents than does Brazos.
Brazos will similarly make available copieo of correspondence with TU Electric, materials relating to meetings of the Comanche Peak Owners Committee, and of filings in TU Electric v.
Tex-La, Cause No. 86-6809 relied upon in preparing this Answer.
In conhection with litigation initiated by TU Electric on May 29, 1986, Brazos, through counsel, has retained experts who may have reached opinions concerning the subjects of these interrogatories.
Brazos believes that the work product of these experts is privileged and objects to their disclosure absent the entry of an appropriate protective order.
XEROX TELECOPIER 293 ;
8-14-87;12:50 PM; 1 817 750 6500
+
2028794001
- 2 Inc aJAIL Ur TEXAb 8
COUNTY OF McLENNAN BEFORE ME, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and,for said county and state, on this day personally appeared J.
D. COPELAND, JR., Assistant General Manager, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., who is duly authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and, who, after being by me duly sworn upon oath, stated:
"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 Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. but not within my personal knowledge, as to which i
I, based on such information, believe them to be true."
\\
hh b tVLtM k J. D # ~ Cope l did, Jr.
GIVEN UNDER MY IIAND AND SEAL OF OFFJCE thits 14th day of August, o C A O tJ E Notary Public/ State of Texas LINDA J. WILSON My Commission Expires
/2 - Lo - 19 s
)
)
l l
I e~.,
3 l
' Respectfully submitted, Attorneys appearing specially for Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
S-Joseph Robert Riley, Esq.
Robert A.
JablWn, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R.
RILEY Bonnie S.
Blair 500 Republic Bank Tower Donald Weightman Waco, Texas 76701 Barbara S.
Esbin (817) 754-5456 SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 879-4000 August 14, 1987 l
2
1 1 4-
)
DCL kili.C
'shv i
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 AUG 14 P4 :02 I hereby certify that I have this day caused the j
-)
'J foregoing doucment to be served upon each person'y)sthd' below, P A N.
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
this 14th day of August, 1987.
q Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section Peter B.
Bloch, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 W.
Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A,. McCollom Administrative Judge 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Elizabeth B.
Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge Nat'l Laboratory P.O.
Box X, Bldg. 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555
'i
.e H Geary S.
Mizuno,.Esq.
Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Maryland National Bank Bldg.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Billie P. Garde, Esq.
Government Accountability. Project l
104 East Wisconsin Avenue Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Mr. James E. Cummins, Res.Insp.
I Comanche" Peak S.E.S.
c/o U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.,
Esq.
R.K. Gad III, Esq.
Williams'S. Eggeling, Esq.
-Kathryn Selleck, Esq.
Ropes & Gray.
225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Samples
& Wooldridge Suite 3200 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr.
W.G.
Counsil i
Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Co.
I.. B. 81 l
400 North Olive ~ Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S.
Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
)
J 9
- Mr. Robert D.
Martin Regional Administrator Region IV U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Suite 1000 611 Bryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div.
P.O.
Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
Suite 1000 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20002 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 William Burchette, Esq.
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert
& Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20007 Donald Weightman /
Law Offices of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid j
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20005-4798 202-879-4000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _