ML20211M866

Response to Case 860918 Eleventh Set of Interrogatories Re Adequacy of Design Aspects of Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan.Applicant Moves for Protective Order.W/ Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20211M866
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/08/1986
From:	Gad R, Tyler T ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
CON-#486-1896 OL, NUDOCS 8612180068
Download: ML20211M866 (11)

Text

i

/(70/

Filed:

December 8, 1986.

/g79 wel/0 ED CORRESF0hui.h%,

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COCKETED

'J$ NRC NUCLEAR REGbLATORY COMMISSION before 'the /

' 86 DEC 16 P4 :04

.i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICJNSING BOARD g; c '

ik.

l ',..

r*

h c' In the Matter of

l

)

/

) '/

Docket Nos. 50-445 Ob TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC <,

) ' ' '

50-44 6 - O D COMPANY et al.

1,,.

)

)

(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steat Electric

)

Operating License)

Station, Uni,tt 1 and,2 ],,. '-

)

)

)

0

N9PLICANTS ' ANSWERS TO CM;E [

CPRT PROGRAMdLAN INTERROGATORIES r

(Set No.

11)

/

~ ' '

f Pursuant to 10 C.F.R' sQ. 2.740 ff., the Applicant $

hereby submit their responses to CASB's "dPRT Dis'.;overy i

^

/

• e Set No. 11," served byj rd$r.ary mai'i on September 18, 1986.

Jnstructions

~The Applicants have igtnrod the instructions contained j,

in the paragraphs labelled "A" through 'I I" incl,usive, as e

contained in the,decumeni entitled "CPRT i)iscovery S

Instructions"'undhi the he.ad'ing " Instruction's" r

(pages 7-

[

10), insofar, as the sa$w are contrary to the Rules of b

5 Practice.

l

/

Desi~n 1

}

E By, agreement of the parties, and with the concurNnce e

i of.the board, mattors regarding the adeir m y ef design 8612190068 861208 Li ADOCK 050009'45 PDR PI

• G

.hho3 h

~

l j.

e i

established at CPSES.

The purpose of these systems is to I

identify and correct specific nonconforming conditions, not to conduct trend analysis; and, as long as the nonconforming conditions continue to be identified, the l

intent of these systems is accomplished.

Trend analysis is an additional tool used at CPSES to identify for management l

purposes any recurring nonconforming conditions.

When 1

trending identifies a recurring adverse condition, appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken.

For example, Corrective Action Request CAR-10, referenced in the disposition of one NCR cited by CASE (NCR No. E 00794S, Rev. 1), was issued as a result of a review of several NCRs which identified 48 cables without proper megger and inspection documentation.

Appropriate actions were taken, and the CAR was closed.

Interrocatory No. 2:

Has or will the CPRT examine the subject matter and implications (as defined by CASE) of this NCR?

Obiection:

The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that it is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the only purpose for which this discovery was 1

authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

Answer:

l

-3 l

4 1 0' l

aspects of the CPRT Program Plan have been excluded from 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.

Interrocatories Interroaatory No. 1:

Do you agree with the characterization by CASE (attached to each NCR) of the subject matter and implications of the NCR?

Obiection:

The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that it is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the only purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

Answer:

Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, Applicants decline to agree or disagree with CASE's characterization of the I

subject matter of an NCR when the NCR itself contains Applicants' characterization of the nonconforming I

j condition.

With regard to implications of the NCRs attached to this set of interrogatories, CASE appears not to fully understand the purpose of the NCR systems l

1 I l

1 i

I

E' Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather I

expressly relying upon the same, if the " subject matter" of 1

the NCR (as defined in the NCR) is within the scope of the hardware being assessed under Action Plan VII.c, or if it falls into one of the specific concerns being responded to l

in the Action Plans responding to specific concerns, then 1

the " subject matter" of the NCR (as defined in the NCR) will be " examined."

Given the global scope of Action Plan VII.c, it is highly probable that the attributes in respect of which the NCR was written will be investigated, regardless of whether the specific item in the NCR was drawn as a sample.

Whether or not, and the extent to which, root cause and generic implications assessments or corrective action might be required in respect of any of these items depends upon the results of the implementation of the CPRT Program, and therefore cannot be determined until implementation of the Program Plan has been completed.

Please see Program Plan, Appendix E.

Interrocatory No. 3:

If the answer to Question [2] is yes, explain in detail I

what have been the CPRT activities with respect to the subject matter and implications and what additional l

activities, if any, are planned.

Obiection:

I I

{

The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the l

l l

l

-4 l

m O

ground that it is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the only purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

Answer:

Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, please see our response to Interrogatory No.

2, suora.

Interrocatory No. 4:

If the answer to Question [2] is no, explain why the CPRT is not examining this matter.

• Answer:

Please see our response to Interrogatory No.

2, suora.

Interrocatory No. 5:

Describe the role, if any, that Mr. Vogelsang, Mr.

Popplewell, and/or Mr. Powers have played in the CPRT or current CPSES work addressing the issues covered by the NCR and in answering these interrogatories.

obiection:

The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the identity of the individuals involved in the implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is irrelevant to the adequacy of the Plan, the only purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants further object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the identity of the individuals involved in the implementation of CPSES project activities, such as i

the processing of NCRs, is irrelevant to the adequacy of the Plan, the only purpose for which this discovery was authorized by.the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

Answer:

Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, the extent to which any CPRT Action Plan expects action from the Project is set forth in the Action Plan, and the extent to which the implementation of any Action Plan involved action from the Project, as well as the identity of the individuals involved in that action, will be described in the Results Report or available in the Working File for that Action Plan, once the Action Plan has been completed and the Results Report approved and published by the SRT.

Interroaatorv No, 6:

Produce for inspection and copying all documents identified in the answers to these questions and all documents examined and/or relied upon in preparation of the answers to these questions.

Answer:

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 referred to herein without objection and specifically identified by CASE of which it has not 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.

e SIGNATURES I,

Terry G. Tyler, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that I am the Program 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 sucn information, believe them to be true.

C./

Terr /u.Tyggr j

Sworn to befo his

/3 day of 1986:

~

8

_s&l,, c3 Ll= s

=

Notary Pbblic,"Srwre er rec *s My commission expires:

sur cu is /9 6f As to Objections: -

o 4

[\\[

/

\\

('

\\d g

W.

Thomas G.

Dignan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III William S. Eggeling Kathryn S.

Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Telephone: (617) 423-6100 t

9-k. ---

?

c r

DOLMEi[L U iNPC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,

Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys 8(o0Ee46 4b6X1bants herein, hereby certify that on December 8, 1986 I_made service of 6IFlu i n

. Art 00CxFDitr 2 f tMCF.

the within " Applicants' Answers to CASE CPRT Prograpahlan Interrogatories (Set No. 11)" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid,'to:

Peter B.

Bloch, Esquire Mr.'Jamec E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.

Atomic 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 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge Midwest Office i

881 W.

Outer Drive 3424 N. Marcos Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911 i

Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Stuart A.

Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S.

Polk Street l

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 l

i l

n.

s.

"t-

~

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 Cak 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 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.

101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111

///

j'

[' ' d U '-

.,A T Kathryn A. Selleck