ML20140C689

Affidavit of Mi Miller Re Preparation for Evidentiary Hearings on Contentions 1.A,6.A,10.A,12.A,13.A,10B & 11C. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20140C689
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	03/20/1986
From:	Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-515 OL, NUDOCS 8603250450
Download: ML20140C689 (7)

Text

-

/ CEL.ATED CORRLSPOND%*

March 20, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OhbEhIED S g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 199AREi 24 P3 :46 In the Matter of: ) f0 M ik//

o -

) BRt.io.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )

) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457d '-

and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL I. MILLER Michael I. Miller, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Isham, Lincoln &

Beale, counsel to Commonwealth Edison Company in the above-captioned proceeding. I have overall responsibility for the preparation of and presentation of the Company's evidence in the operating license hearings. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein.

2. In August, 1985 I determined that I required an evaluation of certain aspects of the reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment by an organization independent of Commonwealth Edison Company or its architect / engineer, Sargent &

Lundy. I retained Torrey Pines Technology Inc. for that purpose and specifically directed the aspects of the reinspection program which I wished them to evaluate. Torrey Pines Technology Inc.

employs personnel who are expert in evaluating various reinspection programs and other quality assurance issues. See e.g. Long Island 9603250450 860320 Y m PDR ADOCK 05000456 >O >

G PDR

~

Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear' Power Station, Unit 1),

LBP-83-5, 18 NRC 445, 617-18 (1983). .The reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment is involved in contentions l'. A, 6.A,.10.A, 12.A and 13.A. . I have relied on the conclusions expressed to me by Torrey Pines in developing-the litigation position which the Company will take on these issues.

Torrey.Pinet, has not been identified as an expert witness in 1

this proceeding nor have I communicated'its conclusions to

$ any employee of Commonwealth Edison Company or Sargent &

I Lundy. No fact.known to Torrey Pines regarding safety-7 '

related mechanical equipment reinspection program has been withheld from discovery.

3. In the course of preparation for the evidentiary l hearings in.this matter a number of reports on various corrective j action programs have been prepared and submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company. Several of these reports deal directly with issues which are in contention. These are the report on safety-I related mechanical equipment (contention items l. A, 6.A, 10.A, i

j 12.A and 13.A), the material traceability verification report (con-j tention item 10.B) and the corroded pipe report (contention item

?

1 11.C). These reports were issued on January 10, 1986, November 15, n 1985 and January 13, 1986, respectively. In each case the report satisfied both a commitment that the Company had made to the NRC Staff and was a part of the preparation for the_ evidentiary hearings on these issues. In each instance I and other attorneys from my firm participated in the drafting of the reports and commented

on various preliminary drafts of each document. In many instances handwritten notes by attorneys appear on the.

drafts for which a privilege from discovery is now claimed.

Changes in organization, approach and presentation of data in these reports occurred in part as a result of advice and participation of counsel. A review of'the drafts would therefore_ disclose the mental impressions and theories of; the attorneys who participated in this process. In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in the j drafts been withheld from the discovery process.

4. I and other attorneys from my firm have partici-pated in the drafting of the BCAP report. At the time this

~ preparation took place it was not certain whether the BCAP report would be used as part of the applicant's direct case in this proceeding. A decision has now been made that the underlying conclusions and analyses contained in that report-will not be a part of the applicant's direct case. It is, however, possible that a portion of the BCAP effort may be evidence in rebuttal. It is for that reason that applicant has turned over in discovery all of the underlying BCAP documents and has responded to interrogatories on BCAP. Since the preparation of the BCAP report involved the same partici-pation of attorneys as described in paragraph 3, the mental impressions and theories of attorneys would be disclosed by a review of the drafts of the BCAP report. In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in the drafts of the BCAP report been withheld from the discovery process.

1

r

5. At an early stage in this proceeding, after the contentions had been admitted, but well before the scope of the' evidence necessary to respond to each contention had been established, I requested an assessment of various re-medial programs under way at the Braidwood site. I asked George Marcus, then Special Assistant to the company's Manager of Projects, to assess these programs for me. .This was done so that I might understand the scope and status of these programs as well as any issues which Mr. Marcus identified regarding their implementation. The results of Mr. Marcus' analysis was communicated only to me and to Michael J. Wallace, Braidwood Project Manager and Thomas Maiman, Commonwealth Edison's Manager of Projects, the individual with overall responsibility for the construction of the Braidwood Station as well as other major construction projects.

Mr. Marcus' assessments were used by me to determine the direction of our firm's efforts in preparing for the evi-dentiary hearing. Mr. Wallace's and Mr. Maiman's participation in this process was necessary so that if additional resources were required with respect to any specific program at my request, they could direct that these resources be made available.

In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in

,g Mr. Marcus' assessment, been withheld from the discovery process.

L Y ud *-

U Michael I. Miller Isham, Lincoln'& Beale 3 First National Plaza-51st floor

. Chicago, Illinois. 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated: March 20, 1986 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of March, 1986.

,.d w Notary Public t,ij C::::nh60 Chh 1:MN' E Y

I 6

i e

e

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael I. Miller, do hereby certify that a copy.of the foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL I. MILLER was served on all persons on the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class (or by expedited means, as shown) this ), d--day of March, 1986.

f.

a l h are ' l -

f Michhel'I. Miller

T ,

SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq. Mr. William L. Clements Chairman Chief, Docketing and Services Administrative Law Judge United States Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety"and Licensing Commission Board Office of the Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem

• 117 North Linden Street Dr. Richard F. Cole P.O. Box 208 Administrative Law Judge Essex, IL 60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory *

• Robert Guild Commission Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Washington, DC 20555 Timothy W. Wright, III BPI 109 North Dearborn Street

• Dr. - A. Dixon Callihan Suite 1300 Administrative Law Judge Chicago, IL 60602 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Charles Jones, Director Illinois Emergency Services

• Stuart Treby, Esq. and Disaster Acency Elaine I. Chan, Esq. 110 East Adams Office of the Executive Lecal Springfield, IL- 62705 Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission William Little, Director Washington,HDC 20555 Braidwood Project Region III United States Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel -799 Roosevelt Road United States Nuclear Regulatory Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Janice A. Stevens (For Addressee Only)

Atomic Safety and Licensing' United States Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Panel Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory 7920 Norfolk Avenue Commission -

Phillips Building Washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, MD 20014 George L. Edgar, Esq.

Thomas A. Schmutz, Esq.

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

I Federal Express 1615 "L" Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Messenger Washington, DC 20036

.-- , - - . , - . _ . - - - .- _ - ... - __