ML20080Q385

First Supplemental Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories. Certification of Counsel Encl

ML20080Q385
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/07/1983
From:	Durbin S CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:	PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20080Q378	List: ML20080Q374 ML20080Q385
References
NUDOCS 8310120381
Download: ML20080Q385 (17)

Text

-

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL A 7e..  ; n-In the Matter of ' '

)

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275

) Docket No. 50-323 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSW3RS TO APPLICANT PG&E'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Gcvernor Deukmejian hereby provides this First Supplement to his answers to applicant PG&E's Second Set of Interrogatories. Please note that only those interrogatories whose answers are being supplemented are reproduced here.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

(

State each and every fact upon which you base your contention that the licensee has failed to timely develop and implement a systematic quality assurance / quality control l program for the design of safety related structures, systems and components' for design work at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 since November 1, 1981.

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

The following changes should be incorporated in Table 1:

1 g O 3 PDR i -

)

a -

Description Appendix B of Deficjency Criteria Reference

6. No Change No Change (add ) Check-lists of IDVP provided to Governor at the deposition of Roger Reedy.

17, Delete Deletet Delete

20. (add) As-built Configu- 3,6,10,16 No Change ration does not conform to PG&E piping specification The following additions should be made to Table 1:

23. Differences between "as 3,6,10,16 EIO 1120, analyzed" and "as-built" EIO 1121 bolt sizes Description Appendix B of Deficiency _ Criteria Reference

24. DCP analysis does not 3,6,16 EIO 1143 correctly consider the revised vertical and horizontal Hosgri spectra.

25. Design analyses performed 3,6,16 EIO 1144 generically qualify vents and drains may not be conservative.

26. Hosgri design response 3,6,16 EIO 3009 spectra for the contain-l ment interior structure developed by DCP does not envelope raw spectra deve-t loped by the IDVP.

l

27. Differences between "as 3,6,10,16 ITR 59,61 built" and as analyzed plant l

2.

l l

l f

)

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

State each and every fact upon which you base your contention that the licensee's major subcontractor at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 have failed to timely develop and implement a systematic quality of safety related structures, systems and components for design work at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 since November 1, 1981.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

During the deposition of PG&E's NRC, and IDVP personnel which were taken between September 20 and 28, l 1983, those personnel, when asked to do so, were unable to l develop an unambiguous list of design subcontractors i

, 1 employeed for design work on Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 j since November 1, 1980. In addition, these individuals were unable to provide the Governor with a complete list of )

design subcontractors working in the ITP offices under the Bechtel/PG&E QA Program as compared to design i

subcontractors working in their own offices under their own j QA Program relied upon in making this supplemental answer are the depositions of Messrs. Morrill, Skidmore, Raymond, l Anderson and Moore.

INTERROGATCRY NO. 3:

Please list each and every major subcontractor for l -

Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 who has been involved in the 3.

r design of safety related structures and/or systems and/or components.

(a) For each such subcontractor state:

(i) the time period when the subcontractor did design of safety related structures, systems and components for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.

(ii) the tin.e period you alleged when the subcontractor did not develop and implement a systematic quality assurance / quality control program.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

See Supplemental answer to Interrogatories 1 and 2, above.

, INTERROGATORY NO. 50:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the scope of the IDVP's review of the seismic design of safety related SS&Cs is too narrow.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50:

ITR-9 and ITR-5 provide a list of design i

contractors for the seismic design of safety-related structures, systems, and components. While at this time the j Governor has not completed an exhaustive list, the 1

Governor's review to date indicates that the number of the l contractors listed in ITR-9 provided design efforts which should have been included in the samples subject to the IDVP f

4.

- --,g--- .- - -e vp y.m~vy m --~--*y-s ---,w.--u=--. m, ------e- - ,-,w-m---, - -+, + - -e---- - --r*. -

review. Specifically, the Governor believes that in general subcontracted design efforts associated with licensing should have been appropriately reviewed by the IDVP.

4 Further, the Commission 's November 19, 1981 order and the letter of the same date from Denton to Furbush specify that the IDVP will review design activities of all (or each) safety-related design service contractor. Also, see responses of the Governor to Interrogatories 7 and 8 in PG&E's Fourth Set of Interrogatories. PG&E's First Set of Interrogatories the IDVP has not questioned or discussed in their Final Report of any ITR the soil structure interaction model for the containment, horizontal analysis DE and DDE for containment; the possibility of uplifting of the mat of the containment for Hosgri and its effects; the uncoupling of the slabs of the Auxiliary building for vertical analysis; the finite element mode of auxiliary buildings, the springs representing the columns and the input motions are the base of these springs; the input motion applied at the base of the soil springs for the Auxiliary building; the l lack of consideration of hydrodynomic presssures on the oceanside of the intake structure; or the effect of the l

l increase by 10% of the horizontal motion to account for l

l accidental eccentricity for other loading conditions, than the ones selected in their samples.

l s.

m .,. .- . . .

INTERROGATORY NO. 56:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP did not verify samples from each of the non-seismic design activities.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56:

See answer to Interrogatory 50 insofar as the design chain that performed the non-seismic design activities it did review.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 58:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Mr. Sestak and Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 60:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the number samples obtained for the non-seismic design activities the IDVP did verify are insufficient to provide mathematically verifiable conclusions about even those activities.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 60:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Mr. Sestak and Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 64:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has accepted deviations from the equipment standards set forth in PG&E's license commitments without providing an adequate engineering justification for

, the change.

6.

l l

l

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 64:

The instances upon which the Governor bases the design quality cor.tentions are specified in the restated Coritentions of Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors, filed September 8, 1983. September 29, 1983. In addition, Contention 4, parts (a) through (u) list the cases in support of the Governor's contention that the IDVP accepted deviations from PG&E licensing commitments without providing an adequate engineering justification.

INTERROGATORY NO. 66:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has failed to ascertain the root cause of the deviation from PG&E's license commitments and the regulatory requirements that it was and is discovering.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 66:

The body of the initial response to Interrogatory NO.'66 remains current. However, the specific listing of EOI's provided in Table 66.1 and 66.2 are replaced in their entirety by Revision 1 to these two Tables which are

! attached to this answer. Also relied upon are the depositions of Messrs. Schierling, Sestak, and Reedy, and Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 68:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has failed to verify independently that all safety related structures, systems, and components at Diablo Canyon meet PG&F's licensing commitments.

7.

• r n ---.p e ,- _ . - -

..~ - . , . , ..- -r--,- - .-,,, ., , ~. - _s-

. .. -, . -_ _ -- . . . - . - -. _ . _ _ . . _=-- .-- . .

4 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 68:-

! Additional information concerning sampling procedures and criteria were provided by the Governor in his response to PG&E's Fourth set of Interrogatories.

Particularly, PG&E is directed to the Governor's response at

this time is the same as given in the " Answers of Governor Deukmejian to Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories,"

dated August 30. 1983. Also relied upon are the depositions of Mr. Schierling, Mr. Sestak, and Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 72:

, State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has failed to verify that modeling by PG&E of soils properties for the containment building is justified and proper.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 72:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Dr. Kuo and q Mr. Polk.

INTERROGATORY NO. 94:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has f ailed to verify that PG&E's modeling of torsion factors by differing techniques for

~

different buildings is conservative and properly done.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94: ,

Also relied upon are the depositions of Dr. Kuo and Mr. Polk.

4 1

8.

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . - _ , . . ~ , _ . . . _ . _ . _ . - . . - - . - - _ _ _ . - . _ , _ - _ _ - . . - . . . . . . - _

INTERROGATORY NO. 108:

State each and every fact upon which you base your s allegation that the IDVP has no systematic program for verifying that the design of equipment supplied to PG&E from its subcontractors met PG&E's license commitments for such equipment.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 108:

The Governor notes that, pursuant to the restated Contentions of Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors filed on September 8, 1983, the scope of the Contention is limited by the Board's August 26, 1983 Order to equipment supplied to PG&E by Westinghouse. Also,'see the answer to Interrogatcry No. 26 provided by the Governor in response to PG&E's Fourth Set of Interrogatories. Also relied upon are the depositions of Messrs Schierling, Sestak, and Morrill and of Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 114:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has failed to require PG&E to implement a corrective and preventative action program that is sufficient to assure that the seismic design deficiencies that have been uncovered do not exist in other unexamined portions of the plant or will not be repeated in future design documents.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 114:

Table 1, as supplemented herein, provides a listing of examples which demonstrate inadequate corrective action 9.

1 - , -~4e,--v-- -

- . , , - , - , - - - - - - - - - , - - - , , ,,-m,- ,

s ,

u '

measures by PG&E which in general'resulted from the IDVP's review of the Diablo Canyon Corrective Action Program.

INTERROGATORY NO. 116 State each and every fact upon which you case your allegation that the IDVP has failed'to look for the root

~

cause of the discrepancies it has found in the seismic design.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 116:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Messrs.

Sestak, Reedy, Morrill, Schierling, and of Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATO'.Y NO. 118:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Messrs.

Sestak, Reedy, Morrill, Schierling and of Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 124:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has failed to recognize the generic nature of a number of the non-seismic design deficiencies uncovered.

l ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 124:

l j The body of the initial response to Interrogatory No. 124 remains current. However, the specific listing of EOIs provided in Tabl? l?1 is replaced in its entirety by Revision 1 to the T .M c oich is attached to this answer.

Also relied upon are the depositions of Messrs. Sestak and Reedy, and of Dr. Cooper.

I 10.

l

}

e

INTERROGATORY NO. 128:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that the IDVP has no systematic program for reviewing whether the seismic design modifications it has requested that PG&E perform have occurred.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 128:

Also relied upon are the depositions of Mr. Sestak, Mr. Morrill and Dr. Cooper.

INTERROGATORY NO. 132:

State each and every fact upon which you base your allegation that PG&E's Internal Technical Program

("ITP") does not provide assurance, equivalent to Appendix B compliance, that PG&E has and will meet its license commitments for the seismic design of SS&C's at Diablo Canyon.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 132:

A listing of instances where the ITP seismic verification fails to provide assurance, equivalent to Appendix B compliance, is set forth in the restated Contentions of Governor George Deukmejian, dated September 8, 1983. In addition, further specification of contentions on design quality assurance arising out of the materials which have been released to date are set forth by the Governor in his filing to the Board on September 29, 1983.

11 ,

t INTERROGATORY NO. 138:

For each even numbered interrogatory from number 50 through number 130, state specifically (section 4, page and line, etc.) where in the regulations, the Commission order of November 19', 1981, the Denton letter of November 19, 1981, or the IDVP's Phase I and II program plans that the activity (or lack thereof) by the IDVP you allege did (or did not) take place is required to take (or not take) placc.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 138:

The regulatory or license committment not complied with for the matters encompassed by Contention 4 are specifically set forth by the Governor in his restated contentions dated September 8, 1983. In general, the license of NRC requirement for which the Governor's review indicates either the ITP or the IDVP has failed to assure compliance is set forth in the specific responses provided by the Governor.

INTERROGATORY NO. 143:

For each answer to these interrogatories, and all subparts thereto, identify each person who participated in the preparation of your answers pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

j section 2.740b(b) .

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 143:

All answers partially prepared by Susan Durbin, Deputy Attorney General. All answers except those to l

l 12

Interrogatories Nos. 72 and 94 partially prepared by Peter Kaufman, Deputy Attorney General. Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 50, 56, 64, 66, 68, 108, 114, 124, 132 and 138 partially prepared by Richard Hubbard of MHB Technical Associates. Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 50 partially prepared by Dr. Jose Roesset.

DATED: OCTOBER , 1983 Respectfully submitted, JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General of the State- of California ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN, Chief Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER, Special Counsel to the Attorney General SUSAN L. DURBIN, PETER H. KAUFMAN, Deputy Attorneys General By k SUSAN L. DURBIN Attorneys for Governor George Deukmejian 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 737-2105 l

13 l

i

Table 66.1 (Revision 1)

LISTING OF E01 RESOLUTIONS WHERE ROOT CAUSE WAS NOT ADDRESSED (Revised)

E0I 'ITR COMMENTS 7001 42 Closed by IDVP; root cause of error was not addressed.

! 7002 48 Closed by IDVP: root cause of error was not

addressed.

7003 42 Closed by IDVP; root cause of error was not addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis.

8001 47 Closed by IDVP; concern proved to exist gener-ically, but safety significance was not addressed in.ITR, nor was root cause of errors. PG&E is now resolving any design implications in its Iterative Design Process.

8010 46 Closed by IDVP; concern proved to exist gener-ically. The IDVP did not address the safety significance in ITR, or the root cause of the errors. PG&E is now performing a general reanalysis.

8011 21 Closed by IDVP; root cause of error was not addressed.

8012 45 Closed by IDVP; root cause of error was not t

addressed.

i 8014 21 Closed by IDVP; resolution omitted mention of four out of six components identified in original E01.

, Root cause of error was not addressed,'nor were potential generic tmplications.

8015 22 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed, nor were the possible negative effects of not requiring flow testing.which the IDVP itself identified.

o 8016 45 (Same as for 8012 above.)

8017 49 Closed by IDVP; concern proved to exist gener-ically. The IDVP did not address the safety significance in the ITR, or the root cause of the error. PG&E is performing a general review and making modifications as necessary.

EOI ITR COMMENTS 8020 18 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not l 8021 addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis.

8023 24 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not 8024 addressed, nor were'the potential generic impli-8025 cations. The error was resolved by modifications.

8026 8031 21 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis. Some of the affected equipment was transferred to E0I File 8064.

8035 18 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. Rather, the error was resolved by modifications.

8036 18 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed.

8038 18 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not

, 8039 addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis.

8044 26 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed.

l 8045 24 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis.

8050 21 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified

! by analysis.

8051 27 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed.

l 8053 28 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not l addressed.

l 8056 28 (Same as for 8053 above.)

8057 49 (Same as for 8017 above.)

8060 22 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the' error was not i

addressed. The error was resolved by modifications.

8063 25 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. The error was resolved by modifications.

8065 48 Closed by IDVP; root cause of the error was not addressed. Rather, the adequacy was justified by analysis.

--.rw-- --

r -----e-,-= mr-.i ,- -- -we --e - - - - -w- ---->---r =s- ee=c- --,---,---r--ey- y-imee-- ww -

--vv--- e-r,r---++--

~

Table 66.2 (Revision 1)

Summary of Table 66.1 ROOT CAUSE OF ERROR NOT ADDRESSED GENERIC RESOLVED BY RESOLVED BY CONCERN MODIFICATION ANALYSIS OTHER TOTAL 4 7 9 10 E0Is 8001 8023 7003 7001 8010 8024 8020 8011 8017 8025 8021 8014 8057 8026 8031 8015 8035 8038 8036 8060 8039 8044 8063 8045 8048 8050 8051 8065 8053 i

8056

'e

. .,s- . , , - . . - - . . . . .

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

) 50-323 O.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

__)

CERTIFICATION I, Susan L. Durbin, hereby certify:

1. I am one of the attorneys for Governor George Deukmejian in the above-entitled matter and, as such, am authorized to execute this certificatica.

2. I have read the foregoint. Governor Deukmejian's First Supplemental Answers to Applicant PG&E's Second Set of Interrogatories and know the contents thereof.

3. I am informed and believe the answers to said Answers to 3 & 50 to be true and correct.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.

Executed at Los Angeles, California, on October 7, l

1983.

l.

/d ff SUSAN L. DURBIN L_ _ _ _ _