ML20133Q408

Affidavit of Lf Fikar Re Mgt Analysis Co Rept of QA Program. Related Correspondence

ML20133Q408
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/07/1985
From:	Fikar L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Shared Package
ML20133Q132	List: ML20133Q129 ML20133Q133 ML20133Q156 ML20133Q164 ML20133Q179 ML20133Q191 ML20133Q299 ML20133Q332 ML20133Q358 ML20133Q390 ML20133Q408 ML20133Q426 ML20133Q448 ML20134A023 ML20134A035 ML20134A043 ML20134A060 ML20134A076 ML20134A088 ML20134A094 ML20134A113 ML20134A137 ML20134A151 ML20134A167 ML20134A171 ML20134A186 ML20134A202
References
OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8508150125
Download: ML20133Q408 (3)

Text

. .  ;

AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS F. FIKAR THE STATE OF TEXAS  :

COUNTY OF DALLAS  :

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Pub!!c in and for Dallas County, Texas, on this day personally appeared LOUIS F. FIKAR, who by me being duly sworn upon his oath deposes and says:

My name is Louis F. Fikar. I reside in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. I retired from Texas Utilities Generating Company effective July 1,1985. At the time of my retirement, I was Executive Vice President of the Company. I held that position since 1978.

In 1978, Management Analysis Company ("MAC") reviewed the Quality Assurance Program and other aspects of the TUGCO organliation at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This rettsw was requested by Perry G. Brittain, the then President of TUCCO. I attended both pre- and post-eudit meetings with representatives of MAC and was interviewed by MAC representatives in conrstion with their review. Sometime in May of 1978, I received a copy of the report prepared by MAC in connection with their work at Comanche Peak which I thoroughly reviewed at that time. I also recall meeting with Messrs. P. G. Brittain ,

and R. 3. Gary to discuss the recommendations and findings which resulted from the MAC review. I retained a copy of the report in my office and gave my copy to R. A. Wooldridge sometime in late May or early June,1985.

In 1980, I was aware that CASE, the Intervenor in the Comanche Peak licensing proceedings, requested information concerning QA audits at Comanche Peak. In the process of responding to those requests, I recall a question being 8508150125 050812 5 PDR ADOCK 050

~

k

raised as to whether or not the discovery applied to the MAC report. It was my opinion that it did not and I so stated. I do not recall any further discussion or question al,out this matter at the time, nor do I recall any discussions with any attorney or other Company officer about this matter.

I did not believe that the MAC report was subject to CASE's discovery requests because it was not then and, to my knowledge, never had been a' part of the Comanche Peak plant records. It was performed solely for the use of senior 4

TUGCO management for its purpose in assessing the TUGCO program for carrying l out its commitments. It was not an audit in the usual sense of that word and i '

certainly did not constitute the type of an audit that would be useful in satisfying j NRC requirements to audit a quality assurance program. From a corporate standpoint, confidentiality of the results of the review had, to my knowledge, been maintained since the report was delivered in 1978. I recall discussions in 1978 with P. G. Brittain and R. J. Gary to the effect that the results of the report should not I

be published or made available generally to employees at the Comanche Peak site

or elsewhere. The three of us were generally aware of the possibility that the i

performance of the review might be taken as an indication that management was critical of the existing TUGCO organization at Comanche Peak. This was not the case and distribution was restricted to only those persons who needed to have the report in order for us to properly assess MAC's recommendations and findings. In

, my judgment, I felt the MAC report was a proprietary document made solely for

the benefit of the senior management of TUGCO and, therefore, was confidential and not to be a public document. Since the results of the MAC report were

generally favorable to the TUGCO organization and the QA program at Comanche Peak and a number of MAC's recommendations had already been or were being implemented, the findings In the MAC report itself had nothing to do with my belief that the report would not be produced in response to the requests for information.

1

I do not recall any discussions concerning the discoverability of the MAC report again until a conversation that I had with R. A. Wooidridge sometime in j l

mid-May,1985.

l

. m n - g l LOUIS F. FIKAR  !

l

' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by the said LOUIS F. FIKAR on this, the 9 TM day of bEGEST ,1985.

._is - YLW Notary Bublic in and for Dallas County, Texas My Commission Expires:

9-t-M

(! '.

-