ML20211E005
| ML20211E005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1986 |
| From: | Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1194 OL, NUDOCS 8610220329 | |
| Download: ML20211E005 (25) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ ____ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Y BEFORE.Tde 00CKETED UNITED STATES U%RC
~NdCLBAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar OFFICE OF IE" M f In tne Matter of ) 00CKET igb]g[h'KL
)
TdXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-OL et al. ) 50-440-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Stacion, Units 1 and 2) ) SUPPL 8 MENTAL CASE RSSPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTlON FOR PROTBCTIV8 ORDER RS 6/27/86 DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO COMPEL Pursuant to 10 CFR 32.740 (b) (2) and 2.74 0 ( f ), Intervenor CAdd moves the Board to compel the production of the documents listea in hppendix A or Applicants' Furtner Supplemental Response dated Octooer 2, 1906, to CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Re 6/27/06 Discovery and Motion to Compell (hereafter Response of 10/2/86), Nos. 3 and 5-21.2 Applicants are withholding these documents on the theory that they are 1 This pleading purports to be f rom Applicants, but in reality it is only on. behalf of Tex-La. The lead applicant, TUEC, has ~ probably not had any access to tne accuments that Tex-La seeks to withhold, since, as discussed infra, Tex-La's real purpose in withnolaing them f rom CASE is apparently to prevent TUEC f rom seeing them. The proolem of who is representing whom in this proceeaing with respect to Applicants is well illustratea by the
.several letters, copies of which the parties nave received, between tne lawyers. See r e.g., letter of August 26, 1986, from Dignan to Vernon; letter of August 28, 1986, f rom Wooldridge to the Board; letter of Septemoer 16, 1966, from all independent counsel for minority owners to Wooldridge.
2 CAsd is not requesting any of the cocuments withheld by Applicants' Response or Sept. 2, 19d6, nor are they requesting Nos. 1, 2, 4, 22, or 23 of the Response of 10/2/o6. 8610220329 861020 PDR ADOCK 05000445-l).$00
. o materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, which fall under the provisions of 10 CFR 32.7 4 0 ( b) (2).
A. The Documents Withheld Are Not Within the Scope of 10 CFR 32.740(b)(2) When the trial preparation aoctrine is asserted, the burden is on the moving party to show that the materials for which a protective order is sougnt were prepared in anticipation of litigation. In Re Shopping Carts Antitrust Litigation, 95 F.R.D. 2 9 9, 3 0 6 (S.D.N.Y.19 8 2 ). Because the search for truth is obstructed by withholding materials, the requirements for asserting tne privilege must be strictly construed. Lundy v. Interfirst Corp., 105 F.R.D. 4 9 9, 60 4 (D.D.C.198 5 ). Tex-La nas failed to show that any of the requested materials were in f act prepared in anticipacion of litigation. To begin with, Tex-La has not explained whether they are asserting that the documents were prepared in anticipation of the Tlb proceeding or ot other litigation and whether CASE is a party to such litigation. A strict reading of 10 CFR s 2.740 (b)(2) shows that it covers only the proceeding in which the request for discovery is made. The first sentence states that the rule applies only to materials " prepared in anticipation or for the nearing" temphasis addea). Similarly, tne last sentence requires tne Board to protect againt disclosure of "the mental ! impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal tneories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeaing" (emphasis acaea). None of the requested documents, however, coula have been prepared in anticipation of the OL i l
s proceeding. 'A11.ot them were generated in the course of the monitoring program tnat Soutnern Engineering and GOS perrormed for Tex-La oeginning in 1981. Southern Engineering nas played no part in preparing for the OL proceeaing. Tex-La's role is almost
. equally limitea, since under the terms of the Joint Ownersnip Agreement Detween itselt anc TUEC, TUEC nas sole authority tor tne licensing as well as the construction ano operation of CPSES.
Applicants' Response dated August 1, 19do, to CASE Request for Production or Documents (June 27, 19au) and Motion for Protective Order (hereaf ter, Response of o/1/o6). Tex-La coes not claim tnat tne requested accuments nave been or will be shared with TUEC, or usea by it in tne OL proceecing. Thus they were not preparea in anticipation of this proceeding. A comparison or the dates or cocuments tnat have been produced with the dates of 'tnose withhela confirms tnis point. No occuments are witnheld which were created before April 1965, yet the Southern Engineering monitoring program started in 1961 and preparation tor tne OL proceeaing startea even before then. It is equally impossiole that the documents were createa in anticipation or the CPn proceedin9 TUEC nas sole. authority for presenting Appilcants' case in tnat proceealng as well as in the OL. A large numoer or enese occuments were 9enerated prior to aanuary 196o, the earliest date at wnicn any of tne parties could nave anticipatea the CPA. Intervenors oelieve tnat tne documents are actually Deing withhela because Tex-La wants to prevent tnelt disclosure for use in tne proceedings currently underway in the District Courts of
.. ,. _. _ . . . - _ - ~ . - . _ . _ - _
Travis and Dallas Counties.3 The courts are split concerning tne extent to which FRCP 26(b)(3) protect materials prepared for one case against discovery in a secono case, althougn where, as here, the cases are related4 the materials will usually De protected. See discussion in 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 326.64 L2j at 26-359-360 (1984). As discussed above, a literal reading of 10 CFR s2.740(b)(2) woulo preclude such protection. But even under FRCP 26(b)(J) the materials shoula be released because, although the information contained in them may be significant in the District Court proceedings, they were not prepared in anticipation of those proceedings, but in ene ordinary course of business. In order to claim successfully that a document was prepared in preparation for litigation, a party must show more tnan the existence of litigation to whicn the cocument is relevant. "If the primary motivating purpose behind tne creation of tne accument is not to assist in pending or impending litigation, then a finding that the document enjoys work product immunity is not manoated." United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292, 296 (TBCA 1985). The fact tnat a party anticipates the possibility of litigation is not suf ficient; the document must have been specifically prepared witn particular litigation in d Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. and Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Texas Otilities and Texas Utilities 81ectric Co., Dis t. C t. of Travis County, TX, 9dth Judicial Dist., Cause No. 399,J36; Texas Otilities v. Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc., Texas Municipal Power Autnority, and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Dist. C t. of Dallas County, TX, A-14th Judicial uist., No. 86-6809. 4 A central issue in the vistrict Court cases is whether TU6C oreached its contractual obligations to oulla CPSE8 in accordance witn NRC requirements.
mina. Since Tex-La has not -even iaentitled tne District Court proceedings as the litigation ror wnich its claim is maae, it has not met its ourden of shouing the extent to which the requested cocuments were prepared for i t. Since the earliest District Court proceecing began in May 1986, and since it was initiated oy TU8C, not Tex-La, Tex-La would nave an even neavier ourden for the majority or these documents in tnat they were created well before May 19db. Moreover, cocuments apparently iaentical in all relevant ways 'were alreaay produced and thus tne ones withheld must serve at oest a pre-existing ordinary business use. Tex-La has not even oegun to make the required showing. Tne Soutnern Engineering / GDS monitoring program, whicn oegan in 1981, was not undertanen in anticipation of litigation but in ordur to meet Tex-La's ooligation to its ratepayers to stay fully inrormed aoout tne plant. 6ee H. Burchette, Permits / Licenses - The Minority Owner's Responsioliities - Tne Function of Legal Counsel, paper presented at Committee on Joint Ownership Meeting, May 20-21, 1960 tattached to CAS8's Request of O/27/86). Aitnough the impetus for tne monitoring program involved legal consiaerations, Tex-La nad no specific litigation in mind in initiating it. Materials prepared to comply witn ongoing legal requirements out not for specitic litigation are created in tne orainary course or business ano are not privilegea. United States vt uult, supra, at 296-97; soeaer v. General Dynamics Corpor a t ion, 90 F.R.D. 2da , 2 53 (1960).5 0 Tne notes to FRCP 20tos state tnat "imjaterials assemoled in tne ordinary course ot business, or pursuant to public -
Tne majority of the requested materials were clearly a part or the routine activities ot the monitoring program, wnich includeo tours of the CPSES site, meetings with TUGCo and TUEC personnel, and analyses of TUSC releases. A few documents are more ditficult to classify from the oriet description proviaed. As discussed below, the Board can decide best whether any of them or portions of them were actually created with specific litigation in mind by inspectig them in camera. In doing so tne Board should bear in mina that none of them were prepared by attorneys and that there is no indication tnat any of them were prepared at the request of an attorney. While materials prepared by non-attorneys may fall unaer the trial preparation ooctrine, tney must be primarily concerned witn legal assistance rather than techical issues in order to qualify. Loctite Corp. v. Fel-Pro, Inc., 667 F.2d $77 (7th Cir.1961). Finally, it appears obvious that the issue nere is not really between CASE and Tex-La but oetween TUEC and Tex-La. Neither CASd nor the record before this Board should oe restricted oecause of a battle between applicants. The source of the controversy is the representation of Tex-La in the OL proceeaing by the same lawyers who represent TUEC in tne lawsuit between TUEC & Tex-La. Since the minority owners are suing and being sued by TOEC concerning issues related to the OL, their interests in tne OL ' dif f er f rom TUSC's interests, yet all or requirements unrelated to litigation, or for otner non-litigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by tnis suoulvision." (Citations omitted.) M M
.. . - ,-a _ . . a. - -
_x --_ Applicants' attorneys in the OL purport to represent TUEC and the minority owners. These attorneys are, in fact, in a conflict of-interest. In representing all of the parties, they are violating Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
~
f the ethical considerations dealing with representation of multiple clients with conflicting interests. See Model Code of Professional Responsibility, ABA, as amenced 1979. By-all indications, the sole basis for continued representation in tnis
- proceeding of the minority owners by TUEC lawyers is the agency agreement created by the original contract Detween TUEC and the minority owners. See footnote i, supra. In addition, it would appear that, unaer Canon 2, continued representation of a client against the client's wishes is improper and thus no contractual i agreement can bind a party to accept a particular lawyer. Thus the heart of Tex-La's oojections here stems f rom the conflict o.t interest problems of the lawyers representing TUEC and Tex-La.
This Board should require a resolution of that problem, not j restrict access by CASE to important data. l ! B. The Requested Documents Are Crucial to CASE's Case . and cannot Be Ootained Except From Tex-La 10 CPR 42.740(o)(2) does not provide unqualified protection for trial preparation materials. The party seeking discovery may 4 ootain oiscovery of such materials by showing (1) that it has suostantial neca of the materials in the preparation of its case, ano (2) that it cannot obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials oy other sneans. 10 CFR 42.740(b)(2) also requires that
l l
; in ordering aiscovery the doara should protect against disclosure I of "the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or otner representative of a party
-concerning the proceeding." in order to see how tnese factors apply to the instant case, it is necessary to Consider the specific materials requested here. But since there is no way to tell exactly what each document contains witnout looking at it, and since the amount of material involved is relatively small, the Board can oest deciae which documents or parts of cocuments should be released by examining them in camera, and CASE requests that the Boara ao this. However, in general it is already clear 4
that these documents are vital to CASE's arguments here. All of the requested documents were generated in the process of the Southern Engineering / GDS monitoring program,6 for which Tex-La contracted in order to obtain an independent assessment of CPSd$. Since Tex-La is itself an applicant, CASE needs to know whether this program enablea it to learn about the problems with CPSES Defore TUSC dic, wnether it then apprised TUEC of the problems, whether and how TUEC responded it it was apprised, and whether either Tex-La or TU8C reported these problems as required by 10 CFR 321.21(b). Tne history or treatment of this material ,
- bears airectly on tne performance of the management of TUEC and Tex-La, ooth applicants in this proceedi.sg, and whether either or notn nac a po11cy of covering up or ignoring ser' us
- cericiencies. These documents also provide insights into
- 6 GDS-took over tne Southern Engineering monitoring program early in 19de, desponse or 10/2/do at 2, n. 1. i l _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~
possible root causes of f ailures which are now surf acing since the Tex-La audits are at least as inrormative as auaits performed oy 1NPO or MAC and TUEC's response to the proolems which Tex-La was identifying would be at least as relevant as its response to other audits. Either Tex-La was ignoring the problems and thus was and is unqualified to be a permit holder or it was informing TUEC and TUEC was ignoring the problems. See, e.g., Attachment A "E xce rp ts from February 1986 Reports." It is impossible to obtain this information from any source other than the reports themselves. Tex-La is the only party of which we are aware that is in possession of these documents. Tne documents consist mainly of firsthand notes which are important as the on-the-scene impressions of the authors. As discussed oelow, it is also important to compare tne notes and the reports themselves in order to tell how complete the reports are. Discussion re Specific Documents
- a. Nos.11-13 and 15-19.
These documents consist of notes taken by Dave Garlington and other Southern Engineering and GDS personnel on tneir tours of Comanche Peak. Mr. Garlington and other GDS personnel have tourea the plant periodically as part of the monitoring program wnich Tex-La initiated in 1981 in oroer to get an inoependent evaluation of tne plant and the progress or construction. M r. Garlington and the otner indiviouals listed in the Reports as having participated in these tours are experiencea nuclear engineers. See Attachment 8, Biographies ot GDS Employees. Their tirsthand impressions or the work oeing performed at CPS 8S auring 1966 and 1986 will provide essential data as to the
implementation of the CPRT and the tinal stages of construction of Unit 2. Some of this data is contained in the reports themselves, but the notes may well contain auditional information. Moreover, a comparison of the notes and tne descriptions in the reports themselves .will assist the Board in deciding to what extent Tex-La has made a gooa f aith ef fort to inf orm itself and TUEC about problems at the plant, as well as how TUSC has cooperated or tailed to cooperate with this ef fort.
- o. Nos. 3 and 5-19 Nos. 3 ana 5-19 consist of or include notes of Gariington and other Southern Engineering / GDS personnel regarding meetings with TUGCo personnel. While a few of these were public meetings (e.g., No. 5), most were not. 8ven notes of public meetings may include private conversations or other information not available except through these notes.
- c. Nos. 20 and 21 Nos. 20 and 21 are summaries of CPStS status reports which CAS8 believes are likely to contain a comparison of what TUEC was saying about how it was building the plant and what actually occurrea.
None of these documents are likely to contain opinion work product, because, as discussea above, tne monitoring program was not designed to prepare for litigation, out to monitor ongoing construction. To the extent that opinions related to specific 11tigation are incluoed, an in camera inspection will enable the Boaro to weigh the importance of protecting it against tne importance ot the inrormation involvea. 1
, - - - . - - - . , ,_ . - . . - , - . _ , _ n . , ,. - , _ . - - ,
CONCLUSION Applicants have not met their burden of showing that these materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Even it they had met it, under 10 CFR 32.740(b)(2) CASE should have access to these materials because they provide essential information which cannot be obtained anywhere else. The Board can best resolve any doubts'as to the issues involved by inspecting the documents h camera. 4 Respectfully suomitted, A -% ANTfiONY ' ./ROISMAN Trial L wyers for Puolic Justice 2000 P Street, NW, #611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE Law Student: Ann flunter Antioch Law School oated: Octooer 20, 1986 I.
I
" ' #-{ -- . - - - _ ;.y . . , , ,
i
%ck-S / ,
soc
- 1
. ,I PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION FEBRUARY 1986 i
f.
!i i
e II ' I l i r.
'l I
tb VI. OPERATIONAL READINESS Conctruction Tall-Off At other nuclear projects, particularly those that have run-on for an extended period of time, a phenomenon hknown as j " construction tail-off" begins to occur near the end of t le ' project. The people involved --particularly craft personne i li b2gan to worry about where they will find their next job. The r t employ- [i worry may lead to a desire to stretch-out their curren cant and may manifest itself in the form of work slow-downs onomic or outright sabotage. The phenomenon is heightened by poor ec t have i' conditions and cases where the current employer does no . cnother on-going project. Both of these conditions exist at ! l CPSES. i Unit 2 management is aware of the above stated condit ons. institute To counteract the negative results, they have begun to Sabotage is reduced if personnel know that the cccess controls: d. cmployer knows who was in the area where sabotage lay-off is discovere In addition, Messrs. Aycock and McBay stated that a i 'has been policy --basically a last in first out or LIFO pol cy--(February formulated and will be promulgated probably next week 17-21, 1986). the While we believe that these measures will help reduce t to negative effects, it will limit the ability of managemen 63
'r- %..p..,
Whfi$:W&rmM,. I L L . . pl lay-off poor performers (the current practice). This is somewhat offset by the fact that they have been following the current practice for some period of time and therefore have weeded-out most of the less productive workers. Under the current policy, a list of those to be laid-off is circulated among the various building managers. If a manager recognizes the name of person who is scheduled to be laid-off who is a better worker than a man working in his building, the manager may substitute the less i productive worker's name on the list and have the more productive worker reassigned to work in his building. , l This issue'was raised during this site visit because of the inordinate number of workers we observed who were not engaged in
- productive work. In discussions with Messrs. Aycock, McBay and Ward, our observations were attributed to fact that Unit 1 l craft personnel had been temporarily reassigned to Unit 2 when the Unit 1 Construction permit expired. Since the permit was renewed by the NRC on the last day of our site visit, and since the personnel were in the process of being reassigned to Unit 1 l during our visit, some of those workers we observed were probably non productive because they had been pulled-off of their Unit 2 job but had r.ot yet been reassigned to a Unit 1 duty.
On the other hand, CPSES was still showing craft utilization figures in the 421 to 54% range. Mr. Aycock agreed during our l discussions that, based on his experience at Duke, CPSES did 64 L
i N not utilize a'large enough number of field observations to assure statistical accuracy in their utilization figures. We agree. l' While we see no immediate need for concern with the effects of construction tail-off --primarily because the phenomenon is in well known to CPSES managers and some controls are being put place to limit its effects-- we believe that this area should be monitored to assure that adverse trends do not develop. M * & 1 ttention to NRC TRT/SSER l While we agree that management athat CPSES will eventual y operating issues is critical to assuring l o know that an an operating license, we a s production of elec-receive in and of itself, does not assure what we license., d above serve to illustrate tricity. The items liste ement approach. consider a short-sighted manag he made a with the Plant Manager, what During our discussions had to pump us to find out been statement to the effect that heWhile his statement may have was going on downtown. 67
' l t
I { Yg 3
< t ..
somewhat of an hyperbole, we found similar undert
- 0, ones in most of h 1
our discussions with management personnel at CPSES i While there is ample evidence of communic a ti s ons between managers in TUEC's Dallas offices and managers at th e CPSES p l site, there is little evidence of dialogue among th ese managers. Some of the recent statements which have b een made to the NRC 1 indicate an " ivory tower" approach insteadowingof shthe pragmatic influence of CPSES personnel who would ha ve to imple-k ment the proposed solutions. i M M w l .1 6 I 68 8
Chime . NAME: James P. McGaughy, Jr. POSITION: Vice President and Secretary EDUCATION: B.S., Electrical Engineering, MIT, 1964 U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Program, 1964-65 M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, 1969 ENGINEERING REGISTRATION: Registered Professional Engineer PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP: American Nuclear Society Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers EXPERIENCE: Mr. Inc. McGaugby directs the power generation services function'at GDS Associates, He has 19 years experience in the nuclear generation field in the areas of licensing, design, construction, start-up, operation, and maintenance of nuclear power plants. Mr. McCaughy has worked with top utility management to solve problems on a vide range of power generation issues. He has successfully managed extremely large and complex generation projects which required the rigorous maintenance of project schedules and quality. Mr. McGaughy has provided testimony before the Texas Public Utility Commission Public Utility Commission of Ohio, and FERC. Specific Experience Includes: Mississippi. Power and Light Company - Mr. McGaughy served as Vice President, Nuclear (1983-84) and Assistant Vice President Nuclear Production (1980-82). He was responsible for all aspects of construction and operation of a multi-billion dollar power generation facility. In this capacity he hired and trained the nuclear power plant staff of over 500 people, including 29 licensed operators and numerous experienced utility managers. Mr. McGaughy also established a unique design engineering group which grew to over 125 people. During this tenure, cost and schedule performance was better than at any other similar plant (G.E. Boiling Water Reactor, BWR-6 design) . Mississippi Power and Light Company - Mr. McGaughy served as Director of Power Production (1978-80). In this capacity he was responsible for all power production related activities including construction, operation. engineering, maintenance, licensing, staffing, and training. He prepared and administered annual personnel and operating budgets for 600 people and more than $50 million, and an annual capital budget of $280 million. He also established a formal screening program for hiring craft personnel, established a formal preventive maintenance program, and reorganized his department based on job performance rather than time in grade. _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ , , _ _ _m _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , - , _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ ,__
NAME: James P. McGaughy, Jr. (Continued) Mississippi Power and Light Company - He served as Nuclear Project Manager (1976-78) and Assistant Project Manager (1973-75). He was responsible for forming and managing an organization to control the prime contractor on a $4 billiod construction project. He began the formation of plant staff organization. He was also responsible for relations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the prime contractor (Bechtel). The construction permit was awarded in record time. -l
, Middle South Services, Inc. - Mr. McCaughy served as a nuclear engineer on the holding company staff responsible for economic and engineering studies including the , feasibility evaluation for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. He also performed nuclear fuel and uraniun buying functions.
Arkansas Power and Light Company - Mr. McCaughy was responsible for nuclear fuel procurement and performed'the licensing work including the preparation of the Safety Analysis Report for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. O e D 4 t 4
- - - - - - - - - . . . ~ , , e- . . . , .. , _ , , , . _ ,-.------,-m- - - - . . , , . - - - . ,-.---.,..-,,.w-- - ~ - . . - - - - ..-.-,e -r, - - - . .-- - ,,- - - - ,v.- -
NAME: David C. Carlington
' POSITION: Senior Engineering EDUCATION:
M.Eng., B.S., Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1978 Nuclear Engineering. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1977 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP: American Nuclear Society American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Nuclear Puwer Codes and Standards Committee, Committee on Operation and Maintenance. Chairman: Working Group on
" Requirements for Performance Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Instrument Air Systems."
EXPERIENCE: Mr. Carlington holds the position of Project Manager at GDS Associates, Inc. He has eight years of experience in the nuclear industry in the areas of. design, testing, operations and maintenance of nuclear power plants. Specific Experience Includes: Southern Engineering Company, Atlanta, Georgia - Mr. Carlington is ~ responsible for monitoring the construction progress and operations organizations of nuclear generating stations, providing analysis and evaluation of construction and operation, and making reports and recommendations to the minority owners of these facilities. Mr. Carlington has provided services to Brazos Electric Cooperative, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, and Allegheny Electric Cooperative. Mr. Carlington also provides con-sulting services to CDS' clients in the areas related to power generation, such as a recent review for the Public Utility Commission of Ohio of a Davis-Besse Decommissioning Cost Study. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck, Connecticut - At Connecticut Yankee, Mr. Carlington was a member of the plant mechanical engineering staff. In that position he coordinated pro-jects with various plant functional groups (operations, maintenance, 16C chemistry, QA/QC, plant management, etc.) in order to investigate and resolve plant operational and maintenance problems. Resolution of 06M problems often entailed modifications to plant equipment and systems which involved design, procurement, construction planning and monitoring, pre-operational testing, operator training and system turnover to operations. Mr. Garlington was also involved in emergency planning at Connecticut Yankee. He has held two key positions in the etereency response arra-nization which report directly to the Director of f:ation Emergency Operations, Manager of Communications and Manager 'f (off-site) Dase Annessment.
NAME: David C. Carlington (Continued) Combustion Engineering, Power Systems Group, Windsor, Connecticut - At Combustion Engineering, Mr. Carlington utilized NSSS computer simula-tions to perform both FSAR accident analysis and evaluations of Nuclear Steam Supply System / Balance of Plant integrated response to contractually required performance related design basis events. Simulation codes wer,e also used to study the feasibility of proposed performance improvement modifications. Mr. Carlington was also involved in the functional design of the Combustion Engineering digital plant protective system, Core Protection Calculator (CPC). In this capacity he was responsible for CPC functional design specifications, software development testing, and-licensed operator training on system operation. 9
. s
)
NAME: William A. Ruhlman ' POSITION: Senior Consultant - Power Generation Services EDUCATION: USNRC Basic, Advanced and Refresher Schools'on PWR and BVR Systems, 1973-1979 (Westinghouse, CE, B&W Reactor Simulators) Associate of Arts (Business Administration), Miami-Dade
. Junior College, 1973 s
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Registered Professional Nuclear Engineer ASQC Certified Quality Engineer PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: American Nuclear Society ' - American Society for Quality Control (ASQC), Energy / Nuclear Division Korea Nuclear Society Nuclear Records Management Association EXPERIENCE: _ 4
- As a Senior Power Generation Consultant for GDS Associates. Inc., Mr. Ruhlman has 24 years of experience in nuclear power'and utility management. His expertise is based on various assignments vit,h Theophilus, Inc., USNRC, International Atomic Energy Agency, and several large utilties. In these assignaents, Mr. Ruhlman was responsible foe numerous managerial and s
engineering projects, some of which are abstracted below. At Theophilus, Inc., Mr. Ruhlman developed and documented Operational Quality Assurance Programs for two nuclear utilities, including implementing procedures. At three of these utilities he also reviewed their activities for regulatory compliance and assisted in training their QA inspectors in techniques and requirements for inspection of areas of operations, pre-operations, startup testing, quality control, and training. Reviewed QA programs for four (4) other utilities and provided comments, suggestions, and alternatives. Participated in internal nuclear utility audits and external audits and surveys of suppliers. Conducted training programs for QA and operations personnel. As Assistant to the Director, USNRC, Region II, Mr. Ruhlman acted as Enforcement Coordinator and performed other functions for the Director of the Region. He also worked on the TMI task force in NRC headquarters for a three-month period. Mr. Ruhlman was Acting Section Chief, USNRC, Region !! for over one year. In this capacity, Mr. Ruhlman directed the Nuclear Support Section 62 (QA, procedures, training, maintenance) in carrying out all regulatory operations.
NAME: William A. Ruhlman (Continued) j Prior to this, Mr. Ruhlman was Lead QA Inspector with USNRC, Region II. His responsibilities included training initial teams of four ' inspectors and directing inspections of all companies / corporations licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the Region. While at USNRC, Region 1. Mr. Ruhlman was Reactor Inspector assigned to Nuclear Support Section #2. In this capacity, he performed inspec-tions in thisof all operating plants and plants in the pre-operational phase Region. Inspection areas were primarily in Quality Assurance and training. Mr. Ruhlman was.QA Expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency assigned to the Republic of Korea for three and one-half months. His responsibilities included inspecting PWR and PHWR operational and' construction sites and making recommendations for QA programs to both the licensee and the regulator. Mr. Ruhlman has extensive operating experience. He spent seven years in the nuclear Watch Supervisor. Navy where he was' a simulator instructor and a Machinery
' He was involved with all facets of operations and
' maintenance on S5W and SIC reactors. During four years with a large southern utility, he was a control center operator and a Nuclear Watch Engineer. In these capacities he held both a Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator license on two 728 MWe FVRs and was involved in all phases of these plants from construction through preoperational and startup testing, initial fuel loading, power ascension testing-through commercial operation on one unit and through 50% power testing i on the other. As a consultant Mr. Ruhlman has been on-site and involved in the QA monitoring of an 1150 MWe PWR from construction ] through preoperational testing, fuel load, and' power ascension testing through commercial operation. He has also been involved in QA audits of a 1250 MWe BWR during plant phases from construction through 50% power testing. During his time with the USSRC/CSAEC/IAEA, Mr. Ruhlman inspected every utility east of the Mississippi and visiced every site which has a reactor commercial as of January 1, 1985. The only currently active sites east of the Mississippi which Mr. Ruhlman has not inspected are Seabrook, Catawba. Wa t t s Ba'r , a nd Vogle . For one year Mr. Ruhlman also worked in the results laboratory at six fossil (oil / gas) fueled electric generating plants ranging in size from 70 MWe to 435 MWe. He was also involved in maintenance and operations at the two 435 MWe units. 2y .- , m -
,_.-%, _-,,y ._.,_,m.-p.-r, ,,,,,.y,__,,,o, ,.,,....m,_ . -.,,,, ,,,-,
.= .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 000KE RD~ . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u;npc - BEFORE TdE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'86 0CT 21 P4 :28 t:
i In the Matter or )
}
0FRE m 'n 1 s l 00CKEllfU ' SPV!Cf. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) ERANDt -l' COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL j
) and 50-446-OL ;
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) i Station, Units 1 and 2; ) l. i I i; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and
' correct copies of SUPPLEMENTAL CASE RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RB 6/27/s6 DISCOVERf AND MOTION TO COMPEL have been sent to the persons listed below this 20th day or October 1960 oy: Express mail where indicated by *; Hand-delivery where indicated oy **; and First Class Mail unless I otherwise indicated. (
l i Administrative Juoge Peter 8. Blocn ; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission :' Washington, D.C. 205s5 ! Dr. Kennetn A. McCollom 11u7 West Anapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74u7a Dr. dalter H. Jordan i del W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37630 dlizabeth 8. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laooratory P.O. dox x, Building 35uo Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1
Ellen Ginsberg, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2055s Robert A. Wooldridge, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels
& Wooldrioge 2u01 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire -
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th S treet, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20Ss5 Renea dicks, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas .76711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis' President, CASE 1420 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Mr. W.G. Counsil dxecutive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Co. Skyway Tower, 25th Floor 40u N. Olive Street Dallas,. Texas 75201 Mr. Rof P. Lessy, J r. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 2
'Mr. Thomas G. Dignan, J r.
Ropes & Gray 223 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 A_
-N
.mo jt cRms-
/
s d 1 i 4
~3 w ---
---r--->- ---,-9,7,, 9y g.7-rn, ywy,,- ,wmp%,vc. .-g -
g s -- gg- - , w,,9_wc -. --g em e- my-- =em-- % + W-e &=wcvav-}}