ML20214Q285

Discovery Rept 12 Requesting Sampling of Applicants Comanche Peak Review Team Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20214Q285
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/18/1986
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
References
CON-#386-801 CPA, NUDOCS 8609240250
Download: ML20214Q285 (17)

Text

I em eo com 8eW""4 9/18/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOLMETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of l Docket Noh SN4j2 P139 I and 50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i GFFICE 0; 5! u tTM y COMPANY, et al. l DOCKETir#G & $EPvict l (Applicationf8 PIP

.(Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Operating License)

Station, Units 1 and 2) l CPRT DISCOVERY - 12 SAMPLING These discovery requests are in regard to sampling in connection with Applicants' CPRT Plan n/.

.1. a. Is it Applicants' position that they know of no way to quantify the level of detection of the reinspection program for random errors?

g / These requests pertain, in part, but are not limited to Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan, "CPRT Sampling Policy, Appilcations and Guidelines."

In accordance with the agreement that design is to be excluded from upcoming litigation (see CASE's 9/15/86 letter from Mrs. Ellis to Licensing Board under subject of "Memorialization of Changes in Recent .

Board orders and/or Filing Dates for Certain Pleadings," at pages 2 and 3, item 4), CASE has attempted for the most part to exclude questions regarding sampling insofar as it relates to design. However, there are obviously some areas which are overlapping, where the answers would be the same for both design and construction, and where it might be possible for Applicants to answer for both construction and design or for both ISAP's and DSAP's. If the answers to any of the discovery requests herein would not be the same for both design and construction, we ask that Applicants simply indicate that the answer would pertain only to design (and that Applicants are therefore not answering at this time). CASE will be filing additional questions regarding sampling in regard to design at a later time.

Should Applicants wish clarification of any of the discovery requests for this 12th set (as discussed in the last paragraph of page 2 of CASE's 9/11/86 Introduction pleading), please contact CASE's representative in Dallas.

8609240250 860918 PDR ADOCK 05000445 1 G PDR t7S 03

4

1. (continued):

b. Is it Applicants' position that they know of no way to quantify the level of detection of-the original inspection program for random errors?

c. Is it therefore Applicants' position that Applicants know of no way to calibrate one program to the other program (e.g., the reinspection program to the original inspection program)?

d. If Applicants' position is different from what is indicated in a.,

b., or c. above, please explain in precise detail how Applicants' position differs.

2. a. Do Applicants agree that it is Applicants' understanding that the CPRT program does not have to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B?

b. If the answer is that Applicants do not agree, provide documentation or identify where it is stated in Applicants' current program plan that they are committed to Appendix B.

c. Do Applicants agree that the CPRT program has not been, and will not be, conducted under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B?

d. Do Applicants agree that Applicants have not requested, and will not request, an exemption from Appendix B pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758?

e. If Applicants' do not agree with a., c., or d. above, please explain in precise detail how Applicants' position differs. We are not requesting a legal opinion in these questions, but are seeking the understanding and opinion of Applicants' management.

2

3. a. (1) What measures have been, or are being, taken by the reinspection program to. ensure that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/95 confidence level that any potential deficiency or trend of deviations will have been identified for each possible stratum? (As one example: How are Applicants ensuring that a large enough sample of all the inspectors has been taken to establish with a 95/95 l confidence level that enough of a single inadequate inspector's or worker's product has been reviewed so that 1

l deficiencies or adverse trends of deviations will have been l

l identified. As another example, what measures have been taken with regard to the possibility that there exists a possible whole separate level of middle management personnel who themselves may never sign anything but who tell others to sign off on work which the signer may believe to be l

l inadequate, incorrect, etc., and to assure that this is not l getting lost in the cracks?)

l (2) Explain in precise detail how the reinspection program ensures that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/95 confidence lxvel that any potential deficiency or trend of deviations will have been identified for each of the following possible strata:

(1) an inadequate inspector; (ii) an inadequate worker; (iii) a bad batch of material; r

3

3.a.(2) (continued):

(iv) a bad design for even a small part; (v) a middle management person who is forcing people underneath him to sign off on things (possibly inadequate or incorrect work) but whose name never appears on anything.

(3) Explain in precise detail how the initial sample ensures with a 95/95 confidence level that each of the above five conditions enumerated above will have been detected when it is suspected that each condition exists.

(4) Explain in precise detail how the initial sample ensures with a 95/95 confidence level that each of the above five conditions enumerated above will have been detected when it is not suspected that any of the conditions exist but when such condition does, in fact, exist.

b. (1) Various population distributions have been assumed: normal, log-normal, poisson, binomial, uniform,U-shapedf2,/.

Explain in precise detail the engineering basis for the assumption that any of these distributions are appropriate for use in a situation such as: one inspector out of 15 is a a

/2/ See document supplied on discovery, by F. A. Webster, " Developing Sampling Plans for TRT Issues", Civil / Structural / Mechanical CPRT, File No. 11.1-001, 3/12/85, Shown in CPRT Plan, Appendix D Revision 1, Attachment 2, second reference (marked with **) listed on page 8 of 12, Table 2 of attachment to 1/31/86 letter to NRC Staff's Mr. Noonan and 1/31/86 letter to the Board. The 3/28/86 letter to CASE from Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad stated: "It is transmitted in its current form, which includes revisions made since the document was first cited in CPRT Program Plan, Appendix D."

4

3.b.(1) (continued):

bad inspector and the others are good inspectors, and the one inspector has allowed a number of errors to go undetected in an unknown pattern. Or, to paraphrase the situation, a number of strata exist, none of which can be said to be a smooth, well-ordered set of data beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the example of the bad inspector). Please respond for the instance when the existence'of such strata is suspected, and separately for the instance when it is not suspected that they exist, but they do in fact exist.

(2) Provide documentation to support your response to (1) above.

c. (1) For each ISAP, which possible strata have been identified by the Applicants?

(2) Where is such identification contained in Applicants' documentation? Provide it if it has not already been provided.

(3) Provide documentation for all work that was found for each of the strata.

-d. (1) For each DSAP, which possible strata have been identified by the Applicants?

(2) Where is such identification contained in Applicants' documentation? Provide it if it has not already been provided.

(3) Provide documentation for all work that was found for each of the strata.

5

.g

4. a. For each ISAP and DSAP, identify each attribute which was not included in the original inspection program. Separately identify those attributes checked during the original inspection program which were not checked during the reinspection program for each ISAP and DSAP.

b. Explain why fewer attributes were required for whichever program has the least attributes. Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.

c. Provide documentation of the evaluation of safety margins established for that program with the least number of attributes.

Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.

d. If Applicants have not evaluated safety margins, do the Applicants agree with the statement that the safety margin cannot be quantified for this particular ISAP or DSAP? Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.

e. If the above cannot be provided because of a lack of any work in this area, provide all documents necessary in order to do this work.

5. Please refer to the F. A. Webster package of documents supplied on discovery, " Developing Sampling Plans for TRT Issues" (see footnote 2, page 4, of this pleading). On page 1 of 6 of the calculation package, it is stated:

"Various assumptions are made in the process of developing the Tables and Figures in the Memo (attached). One main assumption in developing Table 1 . . . is that the Poisson approximation to the binomial distribution is appropriate.

l This approximation is considered justifiable when . . . the sample size is large . . ."

6

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

5. (continued):

However, on page 3 of 8 of the attached 12/12/84 Memo, it is stated (third paragraph):

"It is suggested that Table 1 be used as a guide,'even for small populations. Use of MIL-STD 105D for small populations will result in. sample sizes which are even larger that (sic) those listed in Table 1."

a. Explain in precise detail what is meant by "large" and "small" in these contexts.

b. Provide the engineering basis for recommending the use of Table 1

for small populations when the stated assumption is that the sample size is large.

6. Included in CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, there were a few questions regarding statistical sampling (Questions F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4). Questions F-3 and F-4 stated:

"F-3. Please provide a complete copy of all other documents developed by F. A. Webster et al., in the process of

, developing sampling approaches, applications and/or

! guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT j effort.

"F-4. Please provide a complete copy of all other documents relied on by Applicant and/or Applicant's CPRT response teams in developing and/or implementing the sampling approach, applications, and/or guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT effort."

Applicants initially partially objected to, and partially responded to these two interrogatories (see Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to i " CASE's 8/27/85 7.uterrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order, pages 61 and 62), and stated, in

{ parts i

, T 4

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

,.-,_..,-____,,-...--..,,,--,m,,,,,----_-n_y--r._~ y. ,,, _y,,___,m,,.,yyy..-_ -,.,,y.,,,,- , _ - --,-_. ,y,w- -- y-. - ,

n-_y...

6. (continued):

"To the extent relevant to the assessments and conclusions of CPRT, such documents are or will be contained in the CPRT Central or Working Files, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is incorporated by reference herein."

CASE pursued these two questions during the 11/12/85 prehearing conference on discovery matters (Tr. 24301/16-24302/11), and Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad stated, in part (Tr. 24302/4-7):

"This is all in process CPRT materials except that some of the Webster materials are in the central files, those that underlie Appendix D, or should be."

Under cover letter of 3/28/86, Mr. Gad provided CASE with "a copy of the Fred Webster document that you requested" (which was specifically the document requested in Question F-1, as referenced in footnote 2, page 4, of this pleading). Mr. Gad further stated:

"It is transmitted in its current form, which includes revisions made since the document was first cited in CPRT Program Plan, Appendix D. You will note that 'the document' actually consists of several documents, some of which are handwritten but all of which appear to be legible."

Please provide the following information:

a. Has any change been made to the document provided in response to CASE's question F-1 since the time it was provided to CASE?

b. If the answer to a. above is yes, please explain in precise detail what the change or changes are, by whom such changes were made,

- when each such change was made, and the reason for.each such change.

8

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

6. (continued):

c. If the answer to a. above is yes, please explain in precise detail whether or not, and if so, specifically when and how such changes have been incorporated into Applicants' sampling program, what the effect of such changes has been, and what procedures or other steps have been put into place to assure that the sampling program has been uniformly carried out such that a 95/95 confidence level might be achieved.

d. If the answer to a. above is yes, please provide any and all revised or added pages, including all drafts.

e.' Identify any and all documents regarding your responses to questions a. through d. above.

f. Provide copies of any and all documents identified in e. above.

g. With regard to' Applicants' responses to questions F-3 and F-4, and specifically regarding the statement that "some of the Webster materials are in the central files, those that underlie Appendix D, or should be," it is CASE's present understanding that the only document in the central files for Appendix D is Appendix D itself.

(1) Identify specifically any and all documents which support Appendix D, and identify the specific location of all such documents.

(ii) Provide copies of any and all documents identified in (1) above. If such documents are readily available in the public domain, please so state (as has already been done in response to CASE's interrogatory F-2).

9

{ .EW- _- ,

6.g. (continued):

(iii) If such documents are not available, please explain in precise detail the bases for Applicants' sampling program (s), including an explanation of how such sampling program ensures a 95/95 confidence level.

(iv) Provide copies of all supporting documents for your response to (iii) above.

h. Identify any and all individuals, in addition to Mr. F. A.

Webster, who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages of Appendix D of'the CPRT Plan, including the original and all revisions, and in any changes to Appendix D.

1. For each individual listed in your response to question h. above, answer the following questions (if any of these have already been covered under your response to questions contained in CASE's'CPRT Discovery-2, please so state):

(i) Describe all involvements the individual had in the planning and formation stages of Appendix D. Answer for the original and each revision.

(ii) Identify all activities which the individual performed or participated in regarding Appendix D (the original and each revision).

(iii) Identify all CPSES project activities and other CPRT activities which each of the individuals listed was assigned in the past or has been assigned to or involved in, in addition to those regarding Appendix D.

10

r 6.i. (continued):

iv. Provide a resume for each individual. If not specifically -

included in such resume, provide details as to exactly what educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program. If any individual's resume has already been provided, please state when and in response to which question; if any individual's resume was previously provided some time ago (for instance, during hearings or as part of Applicants' 1984 Motions for Summary Disposition), please provide an updated resume, with particular emphasis on the individual's educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program.'

j. On March 18, 1986, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland, between Applicants and the NRC Staff to discuss statistical matters (see 4/1/86 Summary of Meeting Held on March 18, 1986 to Discuss Statistical Matters, by Charles M. Trammell, NRC Project Manager, PWR Project Directorate #5, Division of PWR Licensing-A).

This meeting, over CASE's strenuous objections, was not transcribed and none of the individuals within CASE who are working on sampling were able to attend f3,/.

f3/ The tape recording which CASE was allowed to have made proved to be useless for the most part, since it was impossible to place the microphone in a locatton where each individual talking could be easily heard, the individuals did not usually identify themselves before speaking and it was therefore impossible to tell with certainty who was talking (and often it was impossible to even guess), etc.

11

6.j. (continued):

Please provide the following information regarding that meeting:

1. Were there any other attendees from Applicants or their agents, in addition to those shown on the list attached to Mr. Trammell's 4/1/86 summary (perhaps because they came in late, for instance)? If so, please identify each such individual.

11. Identify any and all individuals who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages of Applicants' presentation at that meeting.

iii. Identify any and all individuals who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages, and in the final version, of Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement to Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling).

iv. For each individual lis'ted in your response to questions 11.

and 111. above, answer the following questions (if any of these have already been covered under your response to previous questions, please so state and indicate where):

(a) Describe all involvements the individual had in the' planning and formation stages, and in the final versions for the meeting and for Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement. I i

(b) Identify all activities which the individual performed  ;

or participated in regarding the planning and formation 12

6.j.(iv)(b) (continued):

stages, and in the final versions for the meeting and for Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement.

(c) Identify all CPSES project activities and other CPRT activities which each of the individuals listed was assigned in the past or has been assigned to or involved in, in addition to those regarding Appendix D. (If this information has aircady been provided, please state where and when.)

(d) Provide a resume for each individual. If not specifically included in such resume, provide details as to exactly what educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program. If any individual's resume has already been provided, please state when and in response to which question; if any individual's resume was previously provided some time ago (for instance, during hearings or as part of Applicants' 1984 Hotions for Summary Disposition), please provide an updated resume, with particular emphasis on the individual's educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program.

13

/

e  :.

6.j. (contisued):

v. Identify any and all notes (handwritten, typed, etc.) whicht were made of the meeting by Applicants or any of their

/

agents. If Applicants or their agents either tape recorded i the meeting or obtained a copy of such tape recording, and f if Applicants or their agents transcribed or made notes from -

such tape recording, please so state and identify any-and all such documents. Also identify any follow-up memoranda or other internal communications between Applicants and/or any of their agents which flowed from the meeting or any follow-up discussions or meetings.

v1. Provide copies of all items identified in v. above. If it is not indicated clearly on the document, identify who made such notes, etc. ,,,w.,

k. Explain in precise detail the process which led to the development and implementation of Appendix D.

1. Provide the following individuals for deposition (at a time to be mutually agreed upon by Applicants and CASE):

(1) F. A. Webster (11) Each of the other individuals listed in yoor responses to h., j.11., and j.iii. above.

7. a. Do Applicants agree that they are, or will be, making changes in construction due to design changes or other reasonc?

b. If the answer to a. is yes, please explain in precise detail how the sampling program will integrate such changes, and more specifically, whether or not (and if so, explain in precise detail I

, et4 .

, r i

I

7.b. (continued):

in what manner) the newly constructed items will be integrated into the sampling program.

8. a. Do Applicants see any connection or possible~ causal relation between sampling (of either or both design and construction) and the breakdown in design and design OA/QC for pipe supports?

b. If the answer to a. above is yes, explain in precise detail what connection or possible causal relation Applicants perceive may exist.

c. If the answer to a. above is yes, explain in precise detail how this has been integrated into the sampling program for the reinspection effort and what measures have been, or are being, taken by the reinspection program to ensure a 95/95 confidence level for items for which a 100% reinspection has not been, or will not be, performed.

d. Provide any and all documentation for your responses to a. through

c. above.

Please provide CASE in Dallas with three copies of your responses to this set of discovery requests, including three copies of all documents requested, in accordance with the 8/19/86 agreement between CASE and Applicants.

Respectfully submitted, 2xw hts f // '. )

's.) JuanitaEEllis', President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)

. 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 L5 t

1

' DOCMETED USNRC s

'86 SEP 22 P1 :59

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA >

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE C SM IArf Y 00CMETE & SLPVICT' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BRANCH In the Matter cf }{

}{

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos.s50-445 ,

J COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Coranche Peak Steam Electric }{

Station, Units 1 and 2) }{

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's CPRT Discovery -- 12; Sampling I

1 l

l have been sent to the names listed below this 18th day of September ,198 6, i by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and' First Class Mail elsewhere. ,

s i s Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nic clas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary $. Mizuno, Esq.

P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 birector

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission 1107 West Knapp Street W shington, D. C. 20555

, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordatti Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive '

Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1

s

Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General

Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

j Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P _ Street , N. W. , Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderman

'Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee fer Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)

Washington, D. C. 20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels

. William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services Ms. Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000

. Government Accountability Project San Francisco, California ,

1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 94111-5894 Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20009 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Morgan, Lewis & Bocklus 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,

1800 M Street, N. W. Suite 700 Suite 700, North Tower Washington, D. C. 20007 Washington, D. C. 20036 ts.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2

. - - - . - .- --