ML20138H277
| ML20138H277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-918 OL, NUDOCS 8510280520 | |
| Download: ML20138H277 (112) | |
Text
r
[
g l[,4(
n nLAIg couxLdruhuM p
0/26/85 3
q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0078 plp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Rl, %g..m.3, 0j s
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f%
~W'
\\q l<%
,f In the Matter of l
Docket Nos. 50-445 44 1 s'
I and 50-446 O CI ki TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i
COMPANY, et al.
l l
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
{
CASF'S (MAIN DOCKET) RESPONSE TO BOARD'S 10/15/85 REQUEST REGARDING DISCOVERY MATTERS In an off-the-record telephone conference call on October 15, 1985, Board Chairman Bloch requested that the parties address the following:
1.
This is a single case (a) in which CASE's representatives should make a good faith effort to coordinate their discovery activities, (b) in which Applicants should provide more specific responses to discovery, identifying prior responses whenever they believe they have been subject to a redundant request, and 1
(c) in which objections as to relevance may not be restricted to l
relevance to a particular docket.
l 2.
An agenda for a prehearing conference to unlock discovery problems, with procedures for making such unference efficient.
i Responses are to be 'In the hands of the Board on Monday morning, October 28, 1985 g/.
CASE (in the main docket) hereby responds to the Board's request.
l t
s
g 4
Li,/ CASE (in the main docket) requested and was granted an extension f rom l
the original deadline of by the close of business 10/22/85, with the understanding that all parties would enjoy the same extension. There were no objections by Applicants, the NRC Staf f, or CASE in Docket 2.
I 8510]O g5 5
r mso.s
~
1.
This is a single case i
This obviously is a single case, but with two different dockets, wherein issues and evidence produced on discovery in one docket may also be relevant in the other docket (although the reasons such evidence is relevant j
may be dif ferent in each docket). There are necessarily some areas of cverlapping, but legitimately so.
The questions which logically flow from evidence in one docket will usually vary from those questions which i
logically flow from that same evidence in the other docket, and it is i
logical to have separate dockets on those two sometimes somewhat overlapping i
j but different aspects.
(a) in which CASE's representatives should make a good faith effort to i
coordinate their discovery activities i
j CASE's representatives should make a good faith effort to coordinate their discovery activities, and we will continue to do so as much as j
possible.
However, CASE's ef forts must be matched by some degree of cooperation 4
f by the Applicants.
For exemple, it would appear at first reading that CASE's Docket 1 8/27/85 interrogatories requested information which appeared obviously relevant to Docket 2, and Appilcants objected to it on that basis (see both question and answer B-2 at pages 23 and 24 of Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order).
(It should be noted, however, that Applicants did not object to CASE's Question B-7, which requested Information regarding the summary of harassment and intimlidation 2
i
_ _, _. _. _ ~. _ _,. _, _ _. _. _.
i information provided to Mr. Hansel through Applicants' attorneys, and Mr.
Hansel's research of that list; see pages 26 and 27 of Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses.)
However, the situation was not quite that simple - primarily because of the position of Applicants at that time. The time frame during which these interrogatories were filed is very important. During that time, Applicants were arguing that Docket 2 was moot; the Board did not rule until i
8/29/85 -- two days after CASE flied'Its 8/27/85 Interrogatories -- that Docket 2 was not root. The information sought in Question B-2 i
(documentation of all instances of confirmation of allegations of harassment and intimidation by TUGCO) is important not just to Docket 2, but also in Docket 1, since there is at least a good likelihood that any such confirmed harassment and intimidation concerned some specific deficiency in design and/or construction, in the QA/0C program, or other issues properly j
discoverable in the context of Docket 1.
CASE's filing in Docket I was, we i
believe, therefore proper under the circumstances at that time. Applicants should have addressed CASE's request in Docket I without regard for whether j
or not it was also applicable to Docket 2 (this would have been a good time,
i for Applicants to have complied with the Board's directives that tha parties engage in Informal discovery and try to work things out without involving the Board). Regardless of whether or not Docket 2 was declared moot, the requested discovery was applicable to Docket I and should have been l
Independently provided in Docket I even if it was not provided in Docket 2.
This type of problem should be alleviated, we believe, when the Board clarifles and rules at the prehearing conference on discovery requests in i
j both Dockets.
i 3
L
"However, the past questions that we've raised, Applicants have now been aware of for some time and we still haven't received answers'to those.
"So I think that what we have done in the past has been an ef fort the Applica'ts, rather than to cross-examine their to assist n
witnesses or potential witnesses, or anything of that sort.
"But we will have additional questions later, in writing, which we will file formally in the hearings, and there will be quite a few of them from this morning and from yesterday." /3/
2.
Applicants' slowness in responding (in addition to that discussed in iten I preceding) is making it impossible to fully comply with the Board's and the NRC Staf f's requests for input from CASE regarding Applicants' Plan and/or CPRT Plan.
In the Board's 8/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Proposal for Governance of this Case) (page 3, footnote 3), the Board ".
. encourage [d] CASE to continue cooperating with the Staf f by promptly alleging deficiencies (regarding Applicants' Plan and/or CPRT Plan] for Staf f to consider." And the Staff, in its 10/15/85 NRC Staff Response to CASE's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Protective Order (page 9, footnote 6) " express [ed]
Its hope that CASE will continue to participate in the CPRT process by transmitting its comments on the CPRT Program Plan to the Staff in a timely manner, consistent with the past practice of CASE."
CASE wishes to cooperate in this regard and will attempt to continue to assist the Staff and Applicants by such participation.
However, our efforts are being severely hampered and delayed by Applicants' nonresponsiveness.
f 3/ CASE will flie these additional questions when we have had time to review the transcript of the 10/2/85 and 10/3/85 Staf f/ Applicants meeting (which we just obtained on 10/25/85) and prepare our interrogatories.
7
1 In order for CASE to be able to coordinate our discovery efforts in both Dockets, we must have Applicants' cooperation in many regards. For instance, when we ask a very specific question, Applicants should supply a specific answer; we must have enough specific information to assure ourselves that we have received all the relevant documents requested, and that we can safely assume that when we have asked for any and all documents on a specific point, Applicants have indeed provided any and all documents on that specific point.
Details regarding this should be worked out at the prehearing conference.
As the Board is aware, CASE (in the main docket) has been attempting to work informally with Applicants for months on discovery matters. This has been a slow process, and recently the situation has deteriorated dramatically. At the time of the 10/15/85 conference call, in fact, CASE was in the process of working on a motion to Compel; we had planned to send a listing of the specific items regarding which we planned to file the Motion (sort of a pre-Motion to Compel) to Applicants for their review prior to filing an official Motion. Following receipt of additional promised responses from Applicants, we also planned (as agreed upon with Applicants) to respond to Applicants' 8/28/85 Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of August 16, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Current Status of Discovery). However, it already yas obvious that it would be necessary to go to the Board to resolve several of the discovery matters. Although CASE believes that it is an additional burden on CASE to have to respond to the 4
m
Board's request, we believe that a prehearing conference at some point in time will be absolutely essential, and to go ahead with it now will be expeditious and helpful.
The following are two examples of the recent deterioration of informal discovery efforts:
1.
Applicants have specifically stated that they will not cooperate with one method of informal discovery and have specifically asked that CASE discontinue utilizing that particular method.
CASE has attempted to assist Appilcants and the NRC Staff by commenting and raising questions during or at the end of Staf f/ Applicants meetings, in order to alert them of CASE's concerns as quickly as possible and to comply with the Board's request that the parties en2 age in informal discovery /2/.*
However, at the end of the 10/2/85 Staff / Applicants meeting, when CASE's Mrs. Ellis (at the invitation of the Staf f) began her comments and
/2/
See, for instance, regarding design matters, transcript of 6/14/85 NRC/TUGC0 Meeting, Volume II, Afternoon Session, especially: page 181, lines 5-13, where Staff's Mr. Noonan requested that Stone & Webster Vice-President Mr. Siskin address the questions supplied by CASE in writing at the meeting; page 203, line 9, through page 206, line 12, where Mr. Siskin responded; and page 234, line 3, through page 261, CASE's comments and other informal questions.
CASE's 6/14/85 informal questions not responded to by Applicants at the meeting were again requested in CASE's 6/24/85 letter to Applicants' I;
counsel Mr. Wooldridge (page 2, item 3), and finally formally requested in CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Appilcants and Requests to Produce (page 9, item 6).
We still have not received responses to those four-month old questions.
It should be noted that it was Mr. Noonan who suggested that he make 4
i copics-of CASE's written questions and distribute them in advance to the Appilcants and NRC Staf f.
Because of this, CASE attempted to (very informally) type up a few questions on the morning of the 10/2/85 Staff / Applicants meeting.
l l
5 1
L
questions, Applicants' Vice-President Mr. John Beck interrupted to make the following statement (see Transcript of 10/2/85 Staff / Applicants meeting, Tr.
page 57, line 25, through.page 58, line 21):
" Excuse me, Juanita.
"For the record, I need to interject something at this point I think that's appropriate, particularly with regard to the list of questions which you provided to Mr. Noonan.
"The purpose of this meeting as far as we are concerned is to respond to Staff questions and comments. As we understand the governing principles that are associated with meetings of this type, the public is invited to attend and to listen.
"We do not understand that the public is here as a participant in the meeting.
It's not the purpose of this meeting to serve as a substitute for discovery procedures with respect to matters that are in litigation between TUGC0 and CASE, nor, I am f airly certain, would the Staff intend to set a precedent that a meeting such as this is to be used as a discovery device for use in litigation.
"Because of the pending litigation, and as long as there is litigation pending, we are constrained to decline to respond or to submit to that form of interrogatory.
"And that would go for our witnesses and the question you just asked."
CASE's Mrs. Ellis then asked that those written questions be considered an informal discovery request which would be formalized, and made her comments to the Staff. When the Staff invited CASE to speak at the end of the 10/3/85 meeting, Mrs. Ellis stated (see Tr. page 175, line 6, through page 176, line 1):
"I think generally what we' have is a lot of questions; and in line with Mr. Beck's comments yesterday I think that we will at this time forego raising all those questions. There's an awful lot of them anyway. It would take too long to really go into them here.
"Also I'd like to state that we believe what we have been doing in the past should have been an assistance to the Applicants; if they haven't considered it to be, we're sorry.
6 i
i l
6 i
l "However, the past questions that we've raised, Applicants have now been aware of for some time and we still haven't received answers to those.
l-
"So 1 think that what we have done in the past has been an ef fort
}
to assist the Applicants, rather than to cross-examine their l
witnesses or potential witnesses, or anything of that sort.
l "But we will have additional questions later, in uriting, which we I
will file formally in the hearings, and there will be quite a few of them from this morning and from yesterday." /3/
2.
Applicants' slowness In responding (In addition to that discussed i
In item 1 preceding) is making it impossible to fully comply with the j
Board's and the NRC Staff's requests for input from CASE regarding
}
Applicants' Plan and/or CPRT Plan.
In the Board's 8/29/85 Memorandum and Order (Proposal for Covernance of i
this Case) (page 3, footnote 3), the Board "... encourage [d] CASE to
[
continue cooperating with the Staf f by promptly alleging deficiencies r
~l
[regarding Applicants' Plan and/or CPRT Plan} for Staff to consider." And j
the Staff, in its 10/15/85 NRC Staff Response to CASE's Motion for l
Reconsideration and/or Protective Order (page 9, footnote 6) " express [ed]
Its hope that CASE will continue to participate in the CPRT process by j
transmitting its comments on the CPRT Program Plan to the Staf f in a timely
(
)
manner, consistent with the past practice of CASE."
CASE wishes to cooperate in this regard and will attempt to continue to I
assist the Staff and Applicants by such participation. However, our efforts
}
are being severely hampered and delayed by Appilcants' nonresponsiveness.
l i
/3/ CASE will file these additional questions when we have had time to review the transcript of the 10/2/85 and 10/3/85 Staf f/Appilcants l
meeting (which we just obtained on 10/25/85) and prepare our interrogatories.
t l
l l
---7,
._..,,n.-,_n,._,,rn-,_r,
.- n.
In addition to the obvious harm to CASE (which will be discussed further at the prehearing conference), this also may have an adverse impact on the NRC Staff and its zeview of Applicants' CPRT Plan.
CASE is especially concerned that Applicants' delays in responding to discovery requests might lead to decisions by the NRC Staff regarding Appilcants' Plans without the benefit of informed input from CASE regarding key aspect s of the Plans. Such judgements by the Staf f could result in its being placed in the difficult position later of having to change or defend a position l
which might have been dif ferent had the Staf f been able to consider CASE's comments in a more timely fashion.
This problem is perhaps best illust rated by the following example.
In Applicants' [ Doc ket 2] 10/9/85 (1) Response to CASE's 9/4/85 Request for Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Protective Order, Applicants l
stated:
" CASE in Docket-1 flied a substantial discovery request apparently I
intended to address these matters [about the comparatively recent reorganization of Applicants' management team] on August 27, 1985 I
/3/....
"/3/ See ' CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce' (August 27, 1985) (' CASE's 8/27/85 Requests'). The time for responding to these Interrogatories has been Informally enlarged by communications between CASE's representative in Docket-1 and counsel for Applicants. At the same time, Applicants are attempting to work out a program for providing CASE with access to all of the output of CPRT without the need for formal discovery and without causing interruption and delay in the CPRT effort."
- pages 3 and 4 Applicants objected to CASE's Docket 2 discovery requests "as cumulative to CASE's discovery in Docket-1" (page 5), and stated (page 6):
8
1 "Most of the ground covered in CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery has already been ploughed (quite thoroughly) in CASE's 8/27/85 Discovery flied j
in Docket-1. Appilcants will be responding to some of those requests formally, and, with respect to the CPRT Inquiries and requests, are discussing with CASE means to supply such information on a less formal basis.
The fact is that Applicants had not at that time responded at all to CASE's 8/27/85 interrogatories, nor had Applicants submitted any written proposal (as they stated they would) regarding the "less formal" method of responding regarding CPRT Inquiries and requests. Further, the last agreed-upon extension of time was only until 10/7/85; any additional time was just t
taken by Applicants, without any request for agreement of CASE.
This slowness in responding by Appilcants is extremely disturbing, especially since CASE's requests included requests for documents which are absolutely essential for CASE to be able to evaluate the very basic underpinnings of Applicants' sampling approach in the CPRT Plan. For an example, CASE requested in its 8/27/85 Interrogatories (page 15):
i
" Discovery Ret CPRT:
i "1.
Please provide a complete copy of F. A. Webster's work, Developing Plans for TRT Issues, Civil /Strucutral/ Mechanical CPRT, File No.
11.1-001, 3/12/85.
(Cf. Appendix D,
'CPRT Sampling Approach, 4
Applications, and Guidelines, CPRT Plan, Rev. O, page 7 of 11, footnote **.)
"3.
Please provide a complete copy of all other documents developed by F. A. Webster, et. al., in the procene of developing sampling approaches, appilcations and/or guidelines for each and every l
1ssue area of the CPRT effort."
These are very simple, straightforward requests which are easily 1
answerable, regarding documents which are obviously relevant and material, which should be immediately accessible. Ilowever, we have not received them since filing our request almost two months ago.
9 l
We note, in our very quick review of Applicants 10/22/85 Responses to CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories (which we did not receive until 10/23/85),
that Appilcants have now tesponded to these discovery requests (pages 60 and 61), promising to provide the document requested in Quest ion F-1, but objecting to supplying the documents requested in Question F-3 "on the ground that such a request is overly broad and insufficiently specific to permit an intelligent reply." (They then go on to say that they will 1
provide the requested documents, if they exist -- and they don't say whether or not they do -- under the limited process set up by Applicants.)
We note that Applicants' response points up yet another problem which 1
l we have encountered regarding discovery:
Informal discovery cooperation has been a one-way street, as demonstrated by this example. Applicants did not t
j call CASE and say that they thought our question F-3 was too broad and not specific enough and ask us to explain what we wanted and try to narrow it i
down.
Instead, af ter almost two months, they now object to the interrogatory, causing yet further delays. This is not cooperation -- nor is it in compliance with the Board's clear discovery directives to the i
parties. This will be one of the issues discussed at the prehearing f
conference.
)
i i
l
[
1 10 i
l 4
(b) in which Applicants should provide more specific responses to discovery, l
j identifying prior responses whenever they believe they have been subject to l
a redundant request Applicants should provide more specific responses to discovery, identifying prior responses whenever they believe they have been subject to 1
i a redundant request. Further, this is absolutely essential if CASE's t
representatives are to be able to coordinate our discovery activities.
i We also note that Applicants have stated that they " understand, and r
will meet their obligation to point out where the requested information has 4
j already been provided if the objection is one in the nature of ' asked and answered'" (Appilcants' 10/23/85 Brief in Response to Conference Call of October 15, 1985, page 4).
j However, CASE is concerned regarding the wording at page 2 (item 1) of
]
Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to our 8/27/85 Interrogatories; we have not i
l yet had sufficient time to thoroughly review and analyze the full
)
]
implications of Appilcants' statements. We will address this further at a t
later time aftar we have completed our review.
I 1
1 j
(c) in which objections as to relevance may not he restricted to relevance i
to a particular docket l
The Board should disallow objections to discovery based on the relevancy of the data for a particular docket but not for the entire case.
j Once the specific discovery matters and Applicants' objections are discussed 1
j and resolved at the prehearing conference, we believe that many of these problems will have been resolved anyway.
l 4
11 t
2.
An agenda for a prehearing conference to unlock discovery problems, with procedures for making such conference ef ficient The following are matters which CASE believes should be discussed and resolved at the prehearing conference:
1.
Responses to specific CASE discovery requests:
CASE's 1/17/85 First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/4/85 Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/25/85 Third Set of Interrogatories to Appilcants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/25/85 Forth Set of Interrogatories to Appilcants and P.equests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 3/4/85 Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility (See Attachment 2; see also Attachment 1)
Applicants' 8/12/85 and other informal Responses to CASE's 6/24/85 Interrogatories Re: The MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report CASE's 8/5/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 7/22/85 Memorandum and Order (Motions Related to the MAC Report)
Other MAC Reports and other audits, reports, etc., which have now been and should yet be produced in response to past discovery requests CASE's 8/7/85 letter to Messrs. Wonldridge and Mizuno, re Interrogatory 5 of CASE's 6/24/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce ret the MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report (concerning CASE's leg it ima t e needs for some class of Information, overall QA/QC reports and audits, engineering audits, engineering or other audits / reports by or for the minor owners of Comanche Peak, etc.)
CASE's 8/7/85 (and possible future) Request (s) for Supplementation of Applicants' Answers to Previous CASE's Discovery Requasts to Applicants Applicants' 8/28/85 Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of August 16, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Current Status of Discovery)
Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to App 11 cants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order (see Attachment 3, other Specific Issues)
Requests which may overlap with CASE's Docket 2 discovery requests 12
2.
Other Specific Issues (see Attachment 3 hereto) 3.
Any other discovery requests and/or specific issues which we may have Inadvertently omitted in this pleading due to the press of time It should be noted that we are not in thls pleading arguing the merits or going deeply into matters whleh are best left to the prehearing conference, and this pleading is not intended to be either comprehensive or complete.
We note that in their 10/23/85 Brief in Response to Conference Call of Oc t obe r 15, 1985, Appilcants argue that the case should now proceed under normal rules of practice and procedure regarding discovery matters; CASE does not want to belabor the obvious, but we must point out that if Appilcants had been forced to comply with normal NRC regulations, there would be no need for a prehearing conference at thls point in time.
We also note that Applicants argue that there la no need for a prehearing conference. CASE believen that it is evident from this pleading that it is absolutely essential that the Board unlock discovery so that the case can proceed more efficiently and expeditiously. Clearly the Board has the authority and the responsibtlity to manage the case (see 10 CFR 2.752 and 2.755). CASE believes that the time for it to exercise that authority and responsibility has come.
Respectfully submitted, RLa J
fi ' )
prn.) Juanita Ellis, PresTaent CASE (Citizens Association for Sound l
Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 1
l l
13 1
_ ~. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
~ -
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
}{
(
}{
TEXAS UilLITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of j
CASE' S (MAIN DOCKL'r) RESPO!!SE TO BOARD' S 10/15/85 REQUEST REGARDI!!G DISCOVERY l
MATTERS have been sent to the names Itsted below this 26th day of Octobe r
,1985_,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Federal Express whero indicated by * *, Hand-dolivery where indicated by **
- on morning of 10/20/85
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch **
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West liighway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
I Washington, D.C.
20036
- Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- *
- Ceary S. Pizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal l
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom. Dean Commission Division of Engineering, liaryland National Bank Bldg.
I Architecture and Technology
- Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Dr. Walter 11. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing i
881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Administrative Judge llerbert Crossman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West liighway, 4th Floor l
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
I 1
1
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.
- Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
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. Owen S. Merrill Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer 3022 Porter St., N. W.,
- 304 Advisory Committee for Reactor Washington, D. C.
20008 Safeguards (MS H-1016)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. David H. Boltz Washington, D. C.
20555 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels Willlaa Counsil, Vice President
& Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esc.
Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies)
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!!s. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C.
20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services
!!s. Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project San Francisco, California 1901 Que Street, N. U.
94111-5894 Washington, D. C.
20009 t! ark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & P,othwell 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 M
- / d k (s.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dalles, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
27 ATTACHMENT 1 to CASE'S 8/26/85 (Main Docket) Response to Board's 10/15/85 Request Regarding Discovery Matters Discovery Requests at Issue Re: Credibility The following lists the specific discovery requests by CASE which were filed pursuant to the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement) (pages 9 and 10).
Also quoted are each of Applicants' responses to those CASE requests.
In addition, during a telephone conference call between CASE and Applicants on 9/19/85, Applicants' counsel Mr. Horin stated that there is no change in Applicants' positions regarding these credibility discovery requests.
CASE's questions and Applicants' responses are being presented here without argument or comment. They are accurate to the best of CASE's ability under the time frame in which we had to prepare them.
If we have omitted or misquoted any of Applicants' responses, it was inadvertent and we request that Applicants immediately notify us.
CASE'S 1/17/85 FIRST SET OF It4ERROGATORIES TO APPLICA?nS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY See also: Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories CASE Question No.
1.
Supply for' inspection and copying: all documentation not already supplied regarding the liner plate documents for Unit 2; all documentation regarding the liner plate documents for Unit 1.
(CASE believes that Applicants are familiar with the documents we are requesting; however, if there is any question, please contact Billie Garde for details. Our request can be partially satisfied preliminarily by allowing a representative from CASE to go to the site and review the documents, then choose the specific ones of which we want copies.)
Applicants' Response to Question 1:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants objected to providing any additional documents and stated (page 4):
1
r a
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's First Set Ouestion 1 (cont.)
and Question 2 "Intervenor requests all liner plate documentation for Units 1 and 2.
We note that witness Neumeyer's testimony related to liner plate travelers for the Unit 2 refueling cavity and transfer canal. The interrogatory goes far beyond those areas. The Board's Memorandum reopens discovery respecting matters already at issue; it does not authorize wholesale discovery as to matters not at issue.
"More importantly, in Supplements No. 10 and No. 11 to the Comanche Peak SER, respectively, the TRT reports the conclusions of its review and analysis of technical and QA/0C issues regarding liner plate fabrication and installation. Applicants are preparing an action plan to repond to these issues.
For reasons that we will fully explain in our forthcoming plan, Applicants believe that liner plate issues currently before the Board are moot.
Further discovery regarding those issues is therefore inappropriate."
2.
Re: Protective Coatings:
(a) Provide a list of all audits, reports, studies, and other compilations of information (from any and all sources) which have ever been done regarding the protective coatings at Comanche Peak.
If contained in a large document which covers many areas, provide also the page numbers where the information on protective coatings is contained.
(b) Provide all documents listed in (a) preceding, and all responses and follow ups to such documents, for inspection and copying.
(c) Provide a copy of the 1/20/83 Interoffice Memorandum to Doug Frankum from George Spires, under subject: " Optimizing Field Painting at Comanche Peak" (or something similar).
(d) Provide for inspection and copying all responses by Applicants to any notices of violation or other requests for information from the NRC regarding protective coatings.
(e) Provide f or inspect ion and copying all documentation regarding certification and recertification of painters.
Include in your response: all documentation about individuals who failed tests and then were retested, how many failed, etc.; what the practice is now and has been in the past regarding the certification and recertification of painters; what procedures are now and have been in the past regarding the certification and recertification of painters.
l i
2 J
i
o ATTACINENT 1 CASE's First Set Question 2 (cont.)
(f) Has the practice in the past, or does the practice at this time, regarding the certification and recertification of painters differed from the procedures?
(g) If the answer (s) to (f) preceding is yes, explain in detail how the practice differed from the procedures.
(h) Which of the documents listed in (a) preceding was reviewed by J.
J. Lipinsky prior to his 9/28/84 Affidavit attached to Applicants' 9/29/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Trip Report of J.
J. Lipinsky. For each document, also indicate the date of such review, the extent of such review, and whether or not he was given a copy to review offsite.
(1) Which of the documents listed in (a) preceding was reviewed by J.
J. Lipinsky after his 9/28/84 Affidavit attached to Applicants' 9/29/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Trip Report of J.
J. Lipinsky. For each document, also indicate the date of such review, the extent of such review, and whether or not he was given a copy to review offsite.
Applicants' Response to Question 2:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants appeared to be objecting and stated not ripe for discovery, and stated (pages 4 and 5):
"Intervenor requests numerous documents regarding the protective coatings program.
In Supplement No. 9 to the Comanche Peak SER, the TRT concluded that 'a total failure of protective coatings inside containment would not adversely affect the performance of post-accident fluid systems' (p. 1-1).
Accordingly, the TRT found that technical problems with coatings lack safety significance.
Coatings technical issues are moot in light of the SSER, and this interrogatory is not ripe for response."
3
w ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Second Set Question 1 CASE'S 2/4/85 SECOND SET OF INTERROCATORIES TO APPLICAMIS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY See also: Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, and Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests CASE Question No.
1.
(a) How long have Applicants been committed to Manufacturers' Standardization Society (MSS) publication MSS SP-58 (" Pipe Hangers and Support-Materials and Design")?
(b) How long have Applicants been committed to Haauf acturers' Standardization Society (MSS) publication MSS SP-69 (" Pipe Hangers and Supports-Selection and Application")?
(c) Was or is Applicants' commitment to MSS SP-58 and/or MSS SP-69 contained in any document other than Design Specification 2323-MS-46A?
(d)
If the answer to (c) above is yes, list all other such documents.
(e) Supply copies of the pages from Design Specification 2323-MS-46A which contain Applicants' commitment to MSS SP-58 ani'or MSS SP-69 (including the page which contains the Section on Codes and Standards); supply for the original and each revision of MS-46A.
(These should be the pages which correspond to pages 3-15 through 3-20 of Revision 5 of MS-46A.)
i (f) Supply copies of the pages from each of the documents listed in (d) preceding which contain Applicants' commitment to MSS SP-58 i
and/or MSS SP-69 (including the page which contains the section which sets forth the section); supply for the original and each
]
revision of each document listed in (d) preceding.
(g) Has there ever been any discussion, instructions, or any other j
communication (either orally or in writing) between Applicants and Cygna Energy Services regarding MSS SP-58 and/or MSS SP-697 l
i e
f 4
a ATTACHMEKr 1 CASE's Second Set Ouestion 1 (cont.)
and Question 2 1
(h) If the answer to (g) preceding is yes, supply copies of all i
documents (usirg the broad definition on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) by Applicants, Cygna, or anyone else regarding this matter.
If not already indicated on the document (for instance, in the case of handwritten notes) supply the name of the person whose notes they were, the person to whom the notes were written, and the date of such notes; i.e.,
include sufficient specific details so that the document being supplied is readily understandable.
(i)
If the answer to (g) preceding is yes, but there are no documents I
in answer to (h) preceding, provide a brief statement containing the details of such discussion, instructions, or other communication.
Include specific details of who was involved in such communication, the date of each such communication, and a 4
brief summary of the substance of such communication.
Include j
suf fic ient specific details so that the information being supplied j
is readily understandable.
Applicants' Response to Ottestion 1:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 5):
\\
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
in Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 2):
l
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories 1 and 4 of l
CASE's second set as potentially ripe for response. However, upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider these questions to be ripe for ceNpOnse. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe 2
i support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management plan, i
filed June 28, 1985."
2.
(a) provide documentation that Applicants have provided Cygna Energy i
Services with all pubite documents from these proceedings regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations.
5 l
O ATTACilMENT l CASE's Second Set Question 2 (cont.)
(b) Provide (i) a listing of all public documents (including pleadings, i
Proposed Findings, etc., filed by CASE) which have been provided to Cygna Energy Services (by Applicants or others);
(ii) all documents (such as cover letters, memoranda, etc.) by which such public documents were provided; (iii) if the documents were handed to Cygna on site, please so indicate;
)
(iv) who (name, organization, and title) provided and who (nane, j
organization, and titic) received each such public document; (v) and the date on which each such public document was 1
supplied to Cygna.
Applicants' Response to Question 2:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE j
l Interrogatories, Appitcants stated (page 5):
~
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
in Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants (J. Redding) stated (page 3):
" Applicants have requested that Cygna identify the pubite documents from these proceedings which Cygna has received, and the dates on which Cygna believes they were received. Cygna's list l
will include documents received, regardless of the source. This list will be provided to CASE.
(Cygna's initial list, provided herewith, does not include correspondence in the form of letters.
That list is being forwarded separately by Cygna and will be provided to CASE shortly.)
" Applicants', (sic) however, object to requests 2.(b)(iii) and 2(b)(iv). Such requests are irrelevant and require an undue i
burden of researching files and retracing the transmittal of each document, nasuming the information requested could even be located. The majority of the documents referenced, however, were provided to Cygna by Applicants' counsel."
r l
Cygna's initial list was attached to Appiteants 7/3/85 pleading and l
Cygna did subsequently send an updated 11-t.
L l
6
[
f
1 ATTACit!!ENT l CASE's Second Set Question 3 i
3.
(a) Provide documentation that Applicants instructed and/or contracted with Cygna Energy Services to address the design quality assurance issue.
i (b) Provide:
1 (1) a listing of all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of e
this pleading), including contracts, which it.struct and/or i
provide detatis to Cygna Energy Services as to which specific j
aspects of implementation of design quality assurance they are to address and/or how they are to address them; (ii) all documents (such as cover letters, memoranda, etc.) by which such documents were provided; (iii) if the documents were handed to Cygna on site, please so t
indicate; I
(iv) who (name, organization, and title) provided and who (name, j
organization, and title) received each such document; (v) and the date on which each such document was supplied to Cygna.
j (c) Provide copics of all contracts, letters of understanding, or other instructions to or f rom Cygna as to the scope, criteria, 4
protocol, and/or independence of Cygna's review and act tvitles regarding Comanche Peak.
l I
(d) Was there ever any kind of understanding (written or oral) to the j
effect that Cygna was to accept Applicants' representations at face value (similar to the agreement regarding J. J. Lipinsky's acceptance at face value of the statements made in !!r. Brandt's i
~
(d) If the answer to (c) above is yes, provide all documents (as defined in item 3, page 2, of this pleading), including contracts, relating to such understanding.
if no documents exist, supply specific dotatis of such understanding, the namc(s) (and organization and titic) of each
't person with whom the professor discussed such understanding, a l
brief summary of all discussions, the date of each such i
discussion, and any other pertinent details.
l 7
s=
o
]
i ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Second Set Questions 3 and 4 Applicants' Response to Question 3:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE l
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 5):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
in Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants (J. Redding) stated (pages 4 and 5):
" Questions 3 (a), (b): The governing documents which set fort h the scope of Cygna's review are the contracts, in the form of j
purchase order, for Phases 3 and 4.
These documents will be i
provided. Consistent with the Board's ruling (see Tr. 12,810-11),
j Applicants will delete information relating to fees and costs as not relevant ot the issues in this proceeding.
" Quest ion 3. (c):
In addition to the contracts identified in the j
response to Oucations 3.(a) and (b), the letters of protocol prepared and transmitted to Cygna by the NRC are within the scope of this request. These documents will be made available. CASE j
should refer to Tr. 12,305-24, for a discussion of the applicability of those documents to the dif ferent phases of l
Cygna's review.
" Question 3. (d):
No.
By providing this response, Applicants do j
not, however, intend to acquiesce directly or indirectly in CASE's i
characterizat ion of matters relating to Mr. Lipinsky.
)
" Quest ion 3. (d)(sic): Not applicable."
Contracts and letter of protocol were attached to Applicants' 7/3/85 pleading.
l l
i i
i 4
(a) Provide documentation that Applicants have provided the professor discussed in Applicants' Plan with all public documenta from these
{
proceedings.
(b) Provide:
(i) a listing of all public documents (including pleadings, 1
Proposed Findings, etc., filed by CASE) which have been provided to the professor (by Applicants or others);
(11) a itsting of all other documents which have been provided to the professor; 1
i 8
ATTACIIMENT 1 CASE's Second Set Question 4 (cont.)
(iii) all documents (such as cover letters, memoranda, etc.) by which such documents were provided; (iv) if the documents were handed to the professor on site, please so indicate; (v) who (name, organization, and title) provided each such document; (vi) the date on which each such document was supplied to the professor; and (vii) all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) listed in (ii) preceding.
(c) Has the professor ever been on site?
If so, provide specific details of such site visit, including a listing of all documents reviewed, to whom he talked, a brief summary of all discussions onsite, the date of each site visit and discussion, and all documents (see definition under item 3, page 2 of this pleading) relating to each site visit.
(d) Provide copics of all contracts, letters of understanding, or other instructions to or from the professor as to the scope, criteria, protocol, and/or independence of the professor's review and activities regarding Comanche Peak.
(e) Was there ever any kind of understanding (written or otal) to the effect that the professor was to accept Applicants' representations at face value (similar to the agreement regarding J. J. Lipinsky's acceptance at face value of the statements made in Mr. Brandt's affidavit)?
(f)
If the answer to (e) above is yes, provide all documents (as defined in item 3, page 2, of this pleading), including contracts, relating to such understanding.
If no documents exist, supply specific details of such understanding, the name(s) (and organization and title) of each person with whom the professor discussed such understanding, a brief summary of all discussions, the date of each such discussion, and any other pertinent details.
9 i
!i
o ATTACitMENT 1 CASE's Second Set Question 4 (cont.)
and Question 5 Applicants' Response to Question 4:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 5):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 2):
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories I and 4 of CASE's second set as potentially ripe for response. However, upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider these questions to be ripe for response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985."
5.
Provide copies of all damage studies for both Units 1 and 2 of Comanche Peak, and any and all related or similar documents (as defined on page l
2, item 3, of this pleading), including but not limited to those which relate to any unacceptable or questionable designs.
Applicants' Response to Question 5:
- l In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE
~
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 5):
" Applicants will object to this interrogatory as not being relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
4 10
ATTACINENT 1 CASE's Third Set Questions (Gen. Response)
CASE'S 2/25/85 THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICA!CS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY See also: Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, and Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests CASE Question No.
Applicants' general statements regarding CASE's Third Set:
In Applicants ' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (pages 5 through 7):
"These interrogatories relate generally to three topics:
(1) the document control program at Comanche peak, (2) the termination of various document control personnel, including Doble Ibtley, and related allegations and (3) Cygna's prenotification regarding documents to be reviewed in a follow-up audit of the document control system in October, 1983.
"Only the first topic, the document control program, relates to a live issue in this proceeding, while the second and third topics do not.
With respect to the second matter, the Board excluded those allegations from the proceeding when CASE withdrew Dobie Hatley's testimony (see February 15 and July 26, 1984, Telephone Conferences, at 9331 and 13,825-26, respectively).
To the extent the requests concern the termination of other personnel, CASE has never raised the topic as an issue in the proceeding. Finally, the implications of the prenotification matter for Cygna's independence, the issue as to which it was raised by CASE, has already been ruled upon by the Board (Tr.
13115-17, 13471). Applicants set forth below the specific categories into which each request falls, as well as our position with respect to those requests which do not fall within those j
categories.
1 "1,2,27,28,43-49, These requests fall within the scope of the 51,53 first topic. Questions relating to this topic are not, however, ripe for response in that documentation and document control matters have been examined by the Staff and will be addressed by Applicants in their program to respond to questions relating to this topic.
I 11 l
i o
\\
e ATTACHME?TP 1 CASE's Third Set Questions (Gen. Reaponse) and Questions 1 thru 3 "3-14,17,19,22, These requests all fall within the scope 23,24,26,29-37, of topic 2, above.
Thus, they are not 38,50,54,57,58.
relevant to issues in this proceeding.
"40-42,50, These requests all fall within the scope 52,55,56 of topic 3, above.
Thus, they are not relevant to an open issue in the proceeding.
"15,16,18,20, These interrogatories are not relevant to 21,25 issues in this proceeding.
"39 This interrogatory is objectionable on grounds other than those specified above."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 5):
"39.
If there are other documents (under the broad definition on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which pertain or are relevant to questions 1 through 38 preceding, supply them also.
" Response:
" Applicants object to this request as being duplicative of previous requests, and otherwise inconsistent with principles governing MRC discovery which provide that requests in the form of 'all documents' are not proper requests."
CASE Question No.
1.
Please provide a copy of each and every audit, report of audit findings, memoranda, and other coepilations of information (from any and all sources) for the document control program which have ever been done regarding the document control program, document control center, or other document control-related activities at Comanche Peak.
2.
Picase provide a copy of all responses and follow-ups to such documents for inspection and copying.
3.
Picase provide for inspection and copying all notes, memoranda, and other compilations of information documenting interviews with audit, superisory, or managerial personnel concerning the firings of Ms. Doble Hatley, Ms. Billie Orr, and Ms. Meddie Gregory.
(This information should include all information leading up each firing, and subsequent to each firing.)
12
ATTACit4Elfr 1 CASE's Third Set Questions 4 thru 12 4.
Please provide for inspection and copying all notes, memoranda, and other compilations of information documenting interviews with Phyllis Wells (head of audit team at the time of Ms. Hatley's termination) and Joan Swain (assistant head of audit team at the time of Ms. Hatley's termination) with Mr. Frand Strand regarding Ms. Hatley's work as super-visor of the satellite.
i i
5.
Please provide for inspection and copying all notec, sencranda, and other compilations of information documenting laterviews with Edie Hudson, Jim Tate, and Janice Day (workers in the 306 satellite section at the time of Ms. Hatley's termination) with Frank Strand regarding Ms. Hatley's work as supervisor of the satellite.
6.
Please provide for inspection and copying all notes, memoranda and other compilations of information documenting interviews with Kay Norman and Pam Parker (both auditors with the audit team at the time of Ms.
Hatley's termination) with Mr. Frank Strand regarding Ms. Hatley's work as supervisor of the satellite.
7.
Please provide for inspection and copyit all daily reports provided to Mr. Frank Strand for the months of January and February,1984 which log phone requests from satellite 306 into the phone bank regarding design changes.
(Also provide this information for all other satellites for the same time period.)
8.
Please provide a copy of the memorandum from Frank Strand 'ometime during the end of January, 1984 requesting an audit of the design change log for satellite 306, as well as all follow-ups and responses to that request.
PleaseprovideacopyofthecompletE" abs $$(includingallassociated 9.
memoranda and other compilations of ihformac' ion) which resulted f rom this request (see Interrogatory #8 above.)
- 10. Please provide a complete copy of all audits conducted during January, 1984 on any phase of document control, including, but not limited te the satellites.
(Include all associated memoranda, responses, follow-ups, and other compilations of information with the audit itself.)
l
- 11. Please provide a copy of all responses and follow-ups, including memor-anda and other compilations of information, etc.' for the package audit
~
provided in response to Interrogatory #8 on the preceding page. (include with your response, copies of each and every daily update on the ongoing audit which was provided to Mr. Frank Strand.)
12.
Please provide a copy of all notes, memoranda, reports, etc. concerning the meeting between Mr. Frank Strand and Mr. Boyce Grier concerning Ms.
[
Hatley's termination.
(This refers to compilations of information by Mr. Strand.)
13
=
ATTACINEITF 1 CASE's Third Set
]
Questions 13 thru 23
- 13. Please provide a ccpy of each and every follow-up investigation by Mr.
Grier or any of TUGCO's, TU's, or TUSI's personnel concerning Ms.
Hatley's termination.
Include with your response all memoranda, note's, and other compilations of information along with any formal reports.
14.
Please provide complete copies of each and every tape recording, trans-script of each and every tape recording, and notes of each and every tape recording of the meeting (s) between interviews with employees in satellite 306 and Mr. Frank Strand, other Brown & Root supervisors or managers, TU/TUSI/TUGC0 supervisory personnel and/or attorneys concern-ing the work of the satellite and/or Ms. Hatley's work and/or termination.
15.
Please provide a copy of all stop-work orders issued for any phase of work at Comanche Peak from September, 1983 to date.
16.
Please provide for inspection and copying all associated documentation (including, but not limited to, memoranda, notes, and other compilations of information, responses, and follow-ups) to the information provided in response to Interrogatory #15 above.
17.
Please provide for inspection and copying all reports, memoranda, audits, and all associated compilations of information regarding documentation control center computer shutdowns from September, 1983 through January, 1984.
(Include with your response copies of all' follow-ups, responses, etc.)
18.
Please provide a complete copy of NCR M-83-3049, including all revisions, for inspection and copying.
(Please include all associated documentation.)
I 19.
Please provide a complete copy of TCP-84 audit, including all associated responses, follow-ups, memoranda and associated documentation for inspec-tion and copying.
20.
Please provide a complete copy of NCR M-83-01629 (dated 6/14/83), including all revisions 'and associated documentation (including but not limited to memoranda, 50,55(e) reports, etc.) for inspection and conying.
21.
Please provide for inspection and copying a complete copy of NCR M-84-00082 dated 1/10/84, including all revisions and associated documentation (notes, memoranda, reports, 50.55 (e) reports, etc.).
- 22. Please provide for inspection and copying all follow-ups, responses, reports, memoranda, etc. concerning QAI #0003.
ll 23.
Please provide for inspection and copying all responses, correspondence, memoranda, notes and attachments to same provided to Mr. Eisenhut by TUGCO/TUSI/TU in response to BN 84-085.
v l
14 i
--n
,,, - - - - ~,
1 ATTACINENT 1 CASE's Third Set Questions 24 thru 34 24.
Please provide for inspection and copying all investigations, reports, notes, memoranda, and associated documentation developed in the course of Mr. S. Hart 42n's investigation of Ms. Hatley's version of how she obtained a copy of a list of documentation furnished in advance tc Cynga personnch to Hayward Hutchinson.
25.
Please provi,d,e fog i.nspgetion and copying a complete copy of SF'.A f
CP-84-01 including all revisions and associated documentat' incisa 3 memoranda, reports, 50.55 (e) reports, etc.).
r 26.
Please provide for inspection and copying each and every "ruov10 notes, compilation of information and associated reports,
^3%< sation j
developed by Bob Spangler (or by his personnel) and documentation special-ists working from John Merritt's staff in response to Ms. Hatley's alle-gations as stated in BN-84-085.
27.
Picase provide for inspection and copying a complete copy of procedure DCP-3 (all revisions and associated documentation).
28.
Please provide for inspection and copying all procedures (and all revisions to each and every procedure plus all associated documentation for each revision to each procedure) relating to the document control procedures for the paper-flow groups for the building task forces, beginning in December, 1983 through the present.
29.
Please provide a complete copy cf the memorandum #35-1195, dated 2/7/84 to Ray Yockey from H. A. Hutchinson/F.M. Strand re " Termination of Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993)".
(This is a Brown & Root memo.)
j 30.
Please provide a complete copy of the Memorandum for Record dated 2/7/84 the subject of which is " Termination of Dora D. (Dobie) Hatley" signed by Ray Yockey, Manager, Personnel Services.
(Those present were:
D.C.
I Frankum, Ray Yockey, H. H. Hutchinson, and Dobie Hatley.)
- 31. Please provide a complete copy of TUCCO Office Memorandum CQA-001, to B. C. Scott from A. Vega, TUCCO Site OA Manager, dated June 13, 1984, on " Questions Arising from Investigations into D. Hatley Allegations."
32.
Please provide a complete copy of TUCCO Office Memorandum QIQ-766 dated June 14, 1984 'to D. N. Chapman from R.G. Spangler on " Board Notifica-tion 84-085".
33.
Please provide a complete copy of TUCCO Office Memorandum QAI #0003 to
" Distribution" re " Request for Assistance in Resolving Quality Assurance 4
Allegations".
(This refers to an investigation requested by Boyce Grier on 2/9/84.)
i 34.
Please provide a complete copy of the TUCCO Office Memorandum dated February 24, 1984 to A. Vega from Boyce H. Grier re " Allegations of Dobie Hatley".
15 l
=
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Third Set Questions 35 thru 43 35.
Please provide a complete copy of the " attach =ent" noted at the close of the two-page memorandum provided in response to Interrogatory #34 above.
(" Attachment" appears right above cc: D.N. Chapman, R. G. Tolson.)
36.
Please provide a complete copy of the TUGC0 Office Memorandum dated May 22, 1984 to Michael D. Spence from D. N. Chapman re "Dchie Hatley Allegations",
s 37.
Please provide a complete copy of the TUCCO office Mcaorandum dated April 9, 1984 to Mr. David Chapman from David L. Andrews, Director of Corporate Security re " Response - Request for Investigative Assis-tance Regarding Allegations by Ms. Dobie Hatley".
38.
Please provide complete copies of the books which were the personal property of Ms. Dobie Hatley, which Applicant or its attorneys presented to her during one of her depositions (sometime during the su= er of 1984), but which Applicant or its attorneys have not yet returned to her.
Also, return the original books to Ms. Ibtley.
39.
If there are other documents (under the broad definition on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which pertain or are relevant to questions 1 through 38 preceding, supply them also.
40.
Provide copies of the time cards or sheets (whatever record is kept on the time specific individuals worked) for all individuals who worked in the satellites at any time on 10/24/83 or in the morning on 10/25/83 up till the time Cygna came to review the information they had requested in their list.
41.
Specifically what information was supplied to Cygna as a result of their supplying the list or which was listed by Cygna? Supply copies of all such information.
42.
At the time Cygna came on site in October 1983, were the document control center and the satellites the only ones who had control stamps showing that documents were controlled?
If the answer is no, provide complete details as to specifically who (specific name, title, organization) else had control stamps, how ruch control stamps were being used, any audits or investigations, etc.,
which were made of such use, and all documer ts (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding such use, investigation, etc.Give complete details, including whether or not deficiency paper was generated regarding such unauthorized use.
1 43.
Is it Applicants' intention to put design change inf ormation for the site drawings on the computer rather than being handled manually? If so, has this been done? If it is planned but has not been completed, what is the current status and when is it expected that it will be completed?
l 16
O e
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Third Set Questions 44 thru 50 44.
Is it Applicants' intention to put all design change information (for site drawings and vendor drawings as well) on the computer rather than its being handled manually? If so, has this been done? If it is planned but has not been completed, what,is the current status and when is it expected that it will be completed?
45.
Why was the decision made to put design changes into the ccmputer rather than being handled by hand? Why switch fram manual to computer? More specifically, was it because of problems in the manual system?
46.
Who specifically (name, title, organization) inputs b1 formation into the coeputer regarding design changes? Indicate whether each such individual inputs such information directly by actually typing it in or if each such individual provides the information to be input to someone l
else who then types it in.
Include the name, title, and organization of all individuals who type in information provided by someone else as well. Also indicate which of thse individuals are with DCTG.
47.
Are any of the individuals in the satellite system inputing b1 formation into the computer? If so, indicate in answer 46 which individuals are in the satellite system and exactly what their function is in the satellite system.
l 48.
Provide documentation of the training regarding the use of computers each individual listed in answers 4G and 47 has had including the date of all such training, the specific types of training received, who taught each such individual and the qualifications of each such teacher to teach the use of the particular computer used at Comanche Peak (include the name, title, and organization of each such teacher).
49.
Do any of the computers used in the satellite system capable of having j
information input into them? If so, give specific and complete details, including but not Ibnited to: which satellites have this capability, who (specifically name, title, and organization) has access to such computers, the purpose of such use by each such satellite, etc.
Include also whether or not each such computer has the capability for erasing information.
50.
If the information following has not already been supplied in response to other questions asked in the preceding, provide it now: Provide all documents (in the broad sense, as set forth on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which have to do with any discussions, investigations, meetings, or other efforts to ascartain what happened regarding the list supplied by Cygna, the state of the satellites and the satellite system (whether or not it was functioning correctly, whether or not there were problems, what such problems were, to investigate allegations, the audit referred to by Heyward Hutchison at Tr. 9657/17, the tape recordings (and any others) referred to by Heyward Hutchison at Tr. 9666/20-9668/5, etc.),
any any other information which is relevant to any of the matters discussed in questions 1-50 of this pleading.
i 17
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Third Set Questions 51 thru 58 51.
Provide copies of all procedures which relate to any of the questions 1-50 asked in the preceding.
Provide the original and all revisions.
52.
Who (name, title, organization) had access to input information into the computer at the time of the Cygna audit (10/24/83)? Who (name, title, organization) has access to input information into the computer at this time? Provide copies of all procedures which relate to this (original and all revisions).
53.
Is access to the computer a centrolled job? Supply documentation if the answer is yes.
54.
Is Caroline Redding still the supervisor of the Computer Operations Group?
If not, who has been and is currently the supervisor? If not, why did Ms. Redding quit or was she terminated? Supply documentation, such as termination slip, counseling report, and any other relevant documents.
If Ms. Redding is no longer at the plant, supply her last know address and telephone number.
55.
Provide the names, titles, and organizations of all individuals who were j
in the Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) as of 10/24/83? At this time?
56.
Was there ever an investigation done by the NRC Office of Investigation or any other NRC organization into the matter of prenotification of Cygna, potential problems with the satellites or the satellite system (other than the NRC Technical Review Team) ? If the answer is yes, supply all documents (in the broad sense of the word, as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relevant to such investigation (s).
57.
Who (names, titles, and organizations) knew about or has now found out about the secret audit performed by Brown & Root just prior to the firing 2/7/84 of Dobie Hatley regarding the satellites and/or the satellite system?
Give complete specific details including when and how each such person found out about such audit.
58.
CASE believes Applicants should supply answers to all the questions, and all the documents requested herein, as well as the depositions of Heyward Hutchison on 2/11/85 and Frank Strand on 2/12/85 in the Dobie Hatley DOL hearing, to the Licensing Board as a Board Notification of new and significant information. Will Applicants agree to do this?
l l
i e
18 l
l
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set (Gen. Response)
CASE'S 2/25/85 FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY See also: Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility",
Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, and Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests Applicants' general Response:
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re:
Credibility," Applicants stated (pages 1 and 2):
" Applicants' response is governed further by the Board's February 15, 1985, Memorandum (Motion for Protective Order), whereat the Board granted, in part, Applicants' motions fo protective orders by restricting Applicants' motions for protective orders by restricting Applicants' obligation to respond to CASE's discovery requests regarding credibility 'to discovery related to the validity or reliability of tests and samples' (Memorandum at 1).
Accordingly, Applicants respond only to those requests which are within the scope of the authorized discovery. Those discovery requests to which a response is not provided are deemed by Applicants to be beyond that scope."
(Footnotes omitted.)
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated, regarding all open interrogatories (pages 1 and 2):
i i
The Board has indicated that Applicants should respond if the
. request is 'likely to survive regardless of what the Staff does' (see Memorandum (Clarification of LBP 85-16)). Applicants believe the test under the Board's standard is wheth9r actions by the NRC Staff, or Applicants in response to NRC findings, will supersede the issues to which the interrogatories are directed, and thereby render answers to those interrogatories unnecessary. Applicants will submit a statement identifying the issues which they believe will remain tor litigation, in accordance with the Board's May 24, 1985, Memorandum and Order. The responses below reflect i
19
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set (Gen. Response, cont.)
and Question 1 Applicants' preliminary position regarding the ripeness of issues.
A detailed explanation of that position will be set forth in the above-described plan /2/.
j l
"/2/ Applicants acknowledge that future Board decisions regarding the issues to be litigated may alter the obligation to respond to particular requests. The risk of delay associated with the possibility of such changes is, of course, borne by 1.
Applicants. We note, however, that the Board has acknowledged that it will afford Applicants an opportunity to respond to the Staff's findings before reaching decisions on the current state of the record (see Memorandum (CASE Motion for Evidentiary Standard), March 12, 1985 at 2).
- Thus, responding now to interrogatories that Applicants do not believe will remain for litigation would be premature and a waste of the Board's and parties' resources."
Specifically regarding CASE's Fourth Set, Applicants stated (page 7 of Applicants' 6/7/85 pleading):
"These interrogatories primarily concern design issues relating to pipe and cable tray support design. Applicants previously responded to the portions of the requests which concerned the tests and samples performed in connection with Applicants' motions i
for summary disposition regarding pipe support design issues (see Applicants' response, dated March 13, 1985). Applicants are preparing a program to address outstanding design issues in an integrated fashion. Accordingly, to the extent this program will envelope subjects addressed in the interrogatories and thereby render unnecessary further consideration of those issues, as j
heretofore presented in the proceeding,-Applicants identify the interrogatories as not ripe for response."
CASE Question No.
1.
Regarding potentially unstable supports:
(a) Supply a complete list of all supports which Applicants have ever identified as being potentially unstable.
In your answer, include
}
the location of each support. Also include a brief description of the history of each such support (i.e., when, why, how, and because of whom it first became potentially unstable; when, why, how, and by whom it was first identified as being potentially i
20
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question la (cont.)
unstable; when, why, how, and by whom it was initially corrected; when, why, how, and by whom it was finally corrected); include specific dates, specific names, titles, and organization, and specific details.
Supply the requested information (1) for Unit I and common and (2) for Unit 2.
(b) Supply drawings and calculations for each support listed in (a) preceding, at each step of the process (i.e., as the support was when it was first identified as being potentially unstable, when it was initially corrected, and when it was finally corrected).
(lf any of this information has already been supplied, please specify the cover letter by which it was supplied, etc., in sufficient detail so that we can identify the information.)
(c) For each of the supports listed in your answer to (a) preceding, provide all documentation that Applicants identified such support as potentially unstable, including copies of all deficiency paper (i.e., NCR's, CMC's, DCA's, IR's, and any other paper used by Applicants to identify such deficiency,10 CFR 50.55(e) reports, etc.).
Include all supporting documentation for such deficiency reporting, as well as all documentation relating to the consideration of how to handle or correct the problem, including all documentation relating to the final disposition of the problem.
Also include all documentation that each of the potentially unstable supports were included in trending.
(d) Which '(identify by each support's number) of the supports listed in your answer to (a) preceding fit into each of the following categories?
(i) box frame with zero-inch gap attached to a single strut or snubber?
(ii) single strut with cinched-down U-bolt?
(iii) box frames modified by " indexed lugs"?
(iv) box frames modified by " additional struts"?
(v) box frames modified by cinching down U-bolt?
(vi) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap?
(vii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap, modified by adding supplementary steel to create " stability bumpers"?
21 I
v
.~_
4 ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question Id (cont.)
(viii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap, modified by cinching down U-bolt?
l (ix) double strutted frames supporting two or more pipes?
l (x) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe with uncinched U-bolts?
(xi) double strutted f rames supporting a single pipe with cinched -
down U-bolt?
(xii) double strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt?
(xiii) double strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?
(xiv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt?
(xv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?
(xvi) multi-strutted box frame?
(xvii) single snubber with cinched-down U-bolt?
l (xviii) double-strut, double-trunnion with uncinched U-bolt?
(xix) double-strut, double-trunnion with cinched-down U-bolt?
(xx) double strut trapeze with box frame?
(xxi) triple strut box frame?
(xxii) other configurations not specifically listed in the preceding?
t Also supply any additional information which might assist in understanding the configurations discussed in the preceding.
(e) (1) Have Applicants considered the possibility that there may also be some potentially unstable cable tray supports?
(2)
If the answer to (1) is yes, supply the same information for cable tray supports as was requested in (a), (b), and (c) preceding.
(f)
In regard to Cygna's 2/19/85 letter 84042.035 to Mr. J. B. George, under Subject of Stability of-Pipe Supports (copy of which is attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant j
22
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question if (cont.)
Information and CASE's Supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding i
Stability of Pipe Supports, which is being sent in the same mailing with this pleading):
(1) Supply a list of the supports which Cygna identified on page 7 (last paragraph) as:
(1) the 37 supports which, in the total absence of the pipe, are stable; (ii) the 124 supports which, in the absence of the pipe, would be unstable, but which Cygna considers to possess sufficient positive attachment to the pipe to ensure stability; and (iii) the 65 supports which Cygna considers to be potentially unstable.
i (2) Supply the drawings and calculations which Cygna reviewed for each support listed in (1) preceding.
(If these are already included in the Cygna Reports, please indicate where they can be found in the Report.
If these are the same drawings and/or calculations supplied by Applicants in their answer to j
(b) preceding, please so indicate. Fe specific.)
l (3) Supply all drawings, eniculations, or other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) generated by Cygna or its agents in Cygna's review of each support listed in (1) preceding.
(If this has already been provided, please identify, for each support, the specific document provided and the date and Cygna identification number for each such cover letter by which it was provided.)
(4) Did Cygna attempt to ascertain whether or not Applicants had promptly identifed and corrected the problem of potential j
instability?
(5) Did Cygna attempt to ascertain whether or not Applicants had trended each of the supports which were potentially unstable?
(6)
If the answer to (4) and/or (5) preceding is yes, for each of the supports listed in your answer to (1) preceding, provide all documentation which Cygna reviewed which indicated that Applicants identified such support as potentially unstable, i
including copies of all deficiency paper (i.e., NCR's, CMC's, DCA's, IR's, and any other paper used by Applicants to 23
=
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question if(6) (cont.)
identify such deficiency, 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports, etc.).
Include all supporting documentation for such deficiency reporting, as well as all documentation relating to the consideration of how to handle or correct the problem, including all documentation relating to the final disposition of the problem.
Also include all documentation that each of the potentially unstable supports were included in trending.
(If any of this information has already been provided in response to (c) preceding, please identify specifically which such information reviewed by Cygna has already been supplied.)
(7) If the answer to (4) or (5) preceding is yes, what are Cygna's current conclusions regarding the adequacy of Applicants' prompt identification and correction of the problem of instability, as well as the adequacy of Applicants' trending and whether or not such trending accomplishes the purpose of promptly identifying trends which may adversely affect quality?
(8) Which (identify by each support's number) of the supports reviewed by Cygna fit into each of the following categories (this information is not clear from Cygna's listing at the top of page 8):
(i) box frame with zero-inch gap attach'ed to a single strut or snubber?
(ii) single strut with cinched-down U-bolt?
(iii) box frames modified by " indexed lugs"?
(iv) box f rames modified by " additional struts"?
(v) box frames modified by cinching down U-bolt?
(vi) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap?
(vii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap, modified by adding supplementary steel to create
" stability bumpers"?
(Answer appears to be 2; is this correct?)
(viii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal ;zp, modified by cinching down U-bolt?
t 24 I
i
_ _- -. ~
i ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set i
Question If(8)(cont.)
i (ix) double strutted frames supporting two or more pipes?
(x) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe with uncinched U-bolts?
(xi) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe j
with cinched-down U-bolt ?
(xii) double strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt? (Answer appears to be 3; is this correct?)
1 (xiii) double strutted trapeze supports with cinched-i down U-bolt?
(xiv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-1 i
bolt?
1 (xv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?
1 (xvi) multi-strutted box frame? ( Answer appears to be 8; is this correct?)
1 (xvii) single' snubber with cinched-down U-bolt?
i (xviii) double-strut, double-trunnion with uncinched U-bolt?
(xix) double-strut, double-trunnion with cinched-down U-i bolt? (Answer appears to be 1; is this correct?)
i (xx) double strut trapeze with box frame?
(Answer appears to be 2; is this correct?)
(xxi) triple strut box frame?
(Answer appears to be 1;
)
is this correct?)
i (xxii) other configurations not specifically listed in j
the preceding?
?
Also supply any additional information which might assist in understanding the configurations discussed in the preceding.
(9) Do Applicants agree that the copy of Cygna's 2/19/85 letter 84042.035 to Mr. J. B. George, under Subject of Stability of f
i 25 l
b
o ATTACilMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question If(9)(cont.)
Pipe Supports, which was attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant Information and CASE's Supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Stability of Pipe Supports (which is being sent in the same mailing with this pleading), is an authentic and correct copy of the letter received by Applicants from Cygna (with the exception of the date on which CASE received the letter, which has been hand-written in the upper right-hand corner of the letter)?
(10) If the answer to (9) preceding is no, supply an authentic and correct copy of such letter.
(11) Does Cygna consider the 226 pipe supports which they reviewed as part of its Phases 2, 3 and 4 review to be a representative sample of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak?
(12) Do Applicants consider the 226 pipe supports which Cygna reviewed as part of its Phases 2, 3 and 4 review to be a representative sample of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak?
(13) If the answer to (12) preceding is no, please explain in detail Applicants' rationale for having chosen the partice' +
systems which they had Cygna review to help alleviate the Board's concerns about the design of Comanche Peak.
Applicants' Response to Question 1:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 7):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response. Some of the requests (portions of items 1.(f)) concern Cygna's review and conclusions regarding unstable supports. Thehse requests seek information as to which Applicants do not have personal knowledge.
Accordingly, if CASE intends to pursue those requests further, it should do so with Cygna."
t 26
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 2 2.
Regarding A500 Steel:
a.
Provide responses to the following, which refer to the Af fidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr. Regarding A500 Tube Steel, which was attached to Applicants' 4/11/84 Response to Partial Initial Decision Regarding A500 Steel:
(1) Affidavit beginning at bottom of page 2, continuing on page 3:
(i) Provide documentation that Applicants recognized the reduction in yield strength.
(ii) Who were the people (supply individuals' names, titles, and organizations) who recognized the reduction in yield strength?
(iii) Provide affidavits from the individuals listed in (ii) preceding that supports Applicants' statement at the top of page 3 "that several factors in their pipe support designs assured that no adverse safety impact would result from their use of the original yield strengths for A500 tube steel."
(iv) Include in the affidavits discussed in (iii) preceding the credentials of each such individual at the time their decisions were made.
(v) Provide copies of all documents referred to by Applicants which contain the "several factors in their pipe support designs" which " assured that no adverse safety impact would result from their use of the original yield strengths for A500 tube steel.
(2) Affidavit at page 4: Supply calculations and all other documentation which shows a correlation between the 1/16" deflection criteria and stress in the tube steel which Applicants claim in most cases will limit the stress in the supports.
(3) Affidavit at page 4: Supply calculations and all other documentation which shows the stress limits in Hilti bol t s will correlate with stresses in the tube steel.
(4) Affidavit at page 5:
Supply calculations, drawings, and all other documentation which would indicate that the Applicants modified supports while applying " level B stress allowables in assessing the more severe level C loads."
27
__m i
j ATTACilMENT 1 i
CASE's Fourth Set Question 2a(5)
(5)
(i) Affidavit at page 5, last paragraph, continued on page 1
6: Supply copies of the test data, which Applicants i
state is "provided to Applicants by fabricators of steel materials who perform material tests for various properties, including yield strengths, on each production run of material," which would apply after the material has been welded to.
i i
i (ii) Do Applicants consider that the sample of pipe supports discussed at the top of page 6 was a randomly selected j
representative sample?
j Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(ii):
i 1
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories j
and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (page 2):
i
{
"Yes."
i I
i, (iii) Provide documentation of the specific criteria which Applicants originally used in selecting the sample of pipe supports discussed at the top of page 6.
1 i
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(iii):
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories I
and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (pages 2
)
and 3):
l "There is no documentation delineating specific criteria. The
' criterion' employed was simply a mechanical selection process 1
{
from a list of all supports in Unit I and common, which was described in the affidavit accompanying Applicants' April 11, e
i 1984, Response as follows:
"'To generate the sample of supports ^ for this analysis, i
Applicants first developed alphabetical listings of all Unit I
1 and common area ASME supports for each support design organization (NPSI, ITT-Grinnell and PSE). Applicants then i
selected every hundredth support (PSE selected every 90th) from the list. If the selected support did not utilize A500 l
tube steel, the next support on the list which did was
)
chosen.'"
(
l l
28
_.~.---w-,,,,
m.~..y
_,,-,,--v..ws_,,-,,,.,...w,..--,.,.,-,~,,,_.w.
.,p..,.,w-my,,.#,,.,._w-.-.;
. m - -e y,,,,. < -,r
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 2a(5)(iv)
(iv) Who (name, title, organization at the time) determined the specific criteria which Applicants originally used in selecting the sample of pipe supports discussed at the top of page 6?
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(iv):
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (page 3):
" John C. Finneran, Jr., Pipe Support Engineer, Pipe Support Engineering Group, Comanche Peak Steam Elect ric Station."
(v) Who (name, title, organization at the time) actually selected the specific pipe supports included in the sample of pipe supports discussed at the top of page 6?
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(v):
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (pages 3 and 4):
"Three engineers were responsible for identifying the supports in accordance with the predetermined selection ' criteria'. These individuals were:
"G. M. Chamberlain for PSE (large bore)
"D. Y. Chuang for PSE (small bore)
"D. M. Rencher for ITT-Grinnell and NPSl" (vi) Provide all documentation that the supports assessed by Applicants were worst case supports.
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(vi):
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (page 4):
" CASE appears to have misinterpreted Applicants' statement regarding ' worst case supports' at the top of page 6 of the 29 l
l l
b
i ATTAClefENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 2a(5)(vi) l l
affidavit accompanying Applicants' Response (see also answer to questions 2.a.(6), below). There it was stated '
. Applicants have examined the actual yield strengths for A500 tube steel in a sample of pipe supports and conservatively assessed the worst case supports.' Applicants did not intend to suggest that the sample l
of supports selected was itself comprised of the ' worst case' supports. Rather, for all supports in the sample Applicants evaluated the effect of using the. revised yield strengths (see Affidavit at 6-7).
In addition, Applicants selected from the sample of supports utilizing A500 tube steel the worst case
- supports, i.e., ten suports with most highly stressed support i
members (see Affidavit at 7-8), for additional assessment using actual yield strengths."
i (vii) Provide a list of all pipe supports included in the sample of pipe supports discussed at the top of page 6.
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(vii):
f l
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (page 4):
"Except for the PSE small bore supports,. Applicants already i
furnished this information by letter-dated September 6, 1984. A l
list of the PSE small bore supports was not previously requested by CASE. That list is enclosed with this response."
l i
i r
l (viii) Provide a list of the pipe supports from the sample identified in your answer to (vii) preceding which were considered by Applicants to be the worst case supports l
which Applicants " conservatively assessed."
{
Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(viii):
i In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories i
and Requests ~to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (pages 5 l
i and 6):
I t
I i
1 1
1 30 t
_. - -. ~.
i 1
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question
{
2a(5)(viii) 3 4
"The worst case supports Applicants conservatively assessed (see response to a.(5)(vi) were the supports from the sample with the ten highest stressed members fabricated with A500 tube steel (see Applicants' Response (Affidavit at 7-8)).
These supports are:
i "LARGE BORE "1.
FW-1-100-002 "2.
CC-2-028-704-A33A "3.
CC-1-008-015-S33R-
"5.
BR-X-044-006-A53R "6.
SW-1-004-013-A33R "7.
MS-1-004-003-S72R "8.
AF-1-001-035-Y33R "SMALL BORE I
"1.
H-CH-2-AB-010-017-3 "2.
H-FSI-X-2617-01-02-2 "In addition, CASE will recall that Applicants already provided l
CASE with a list of supports, and relevant documentation for the t,
supoprts, which Applicants were informed CASE considered to be
' worst case',
i.e., the 20 1arge bore supports with the greatest
~
interaction values and any supports in Applicants' sample which utilized intermediate Richmond Inserts and which were not in the first group of twenty supports (there were three such supports)
(see Applicants' letter to CASE dated September 6, 1984.)"
( ix) Provide copies of all documentation (calculations, drawings, etc.) for each of the pipe supports listed in your answer to (vii) preceding.
4 Applicants' Response to Question 2.a.(5)(ix):
i In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated (pages 6 and 7):
" Applicants object to this request as being duplicative, unduly broad and. burdensome in light of the documentation already provided CASE.
The issue involved is narrow, i.e., whether A500 tube steel members in l
31
i ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Questioa 2a(5)(ix) supports are adequately designed if one assumes the applicability of revised yield values published in an ASME code case. CASE's request is unduly broad in that it seeks material not relevant to the adequacy of the tube steel members (1,.e,., all calculat ions for the supports).
Therefore, if discovery is to be had at all it should be limited to the portions of the design rearding the A500 tube steel members, in addition, as previously noted. APflicants have already provided CASE with the drawings and calculations of 23 supports. Thus, CASE's request is in part duplicative of material already provided. Finally, the 23 supports for which documentation was already provided were, using CASE's own criteria, the ' worst case' supports in the sample.
Thus, to provide the information CASE now seeks would be unduly burdensome in view of the information already provided. Applicatns submit that no additional benefit would be gained by directing resources to gather and reproduce these documents when those which CASE previously considered were most important to the issue have already been provided."
(6) (1) Do Applicants consider that the sample of pipe supports discussed in the middle paragraph on page 6 was a randomly selected representative sample?
(ii) Provide documentation of the specific criteria which Applicants originally used in selecting the sample of pipe supports discussed in the middle paragraph on page 6.
(iii) Who (name, title, organization at the time) determined the specific criteria which Applicants originally used in selecting the sample of pipe supports discussed in the middle paragraph on page 6?
(iv) Who (name, title, organization at the time) actually selected the specific pipe supports included in the sample of pipe supports discussed in the middle paragraph on page 67 (v) Provide all documentation that the supports assessed by Applicants were worst case supports.
(vi) Provide a list of all pipe supports included in the sample of pipe supports discussed in the middle paragraph on page 6.
32
ATTACHMEtTP 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 2a(6)(vii)
(vii) Provide copies of all documentation (calculations, drawings, etc.) for each of the pipe supports listed in your answer to (vi) preceding.
Applicants' Response to Questions 2.a.(6)(1)-(vii):
In Applicants' 3/13/85 Response to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated:
"These requests duplicate requests 2.a.(5)(ii)-(vii) and (ix),
respectively, in that the sample discussed at the top of page 6 in Applicants' affidavit is the same sample discussed in the middle paragraph of that page. Accordingly, the answers to these two sets of questions are the same."
(7) Affidavit at page 7:
Supply the support numbers, calculations, and drawings for all supports which required modification in the vendor certification process due to the tube steel member's being overstressed.
(8) Affidavit at page 8: Provide documentation from ASME or the ASME code that supports Applicants' that there will be only a "15% reduction in yield strength" when the tested tube steel member's yield value is above the "42 ksi yield strength value originally published."
(9) Affidavit at page 8: Provide all documentation of the basis for the assurance which Applicants claim to have that the tube steel material which is tested at 56.3 ksi will not have a yield strength value of 36 ksi (or less) af ter welding.
(b) The following relate to page 5 of Applicants' 4/11/84 Response to Partial Initial Decision Regarding A500 Steel, page 5, Footnote 6:
(1) Provide documentation showing the contract dates for all piping on which tube steel supports are used.
(2) Provide documentation showing the original contract dates for ITT Grinnell, NPSI, and PSE for all supports within their scopes and all supports that were transferred from one organization's scope to another's.
33 i
l l
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 2b(3) and Question 3 (3) Provide documentation showing dates of an approval to revision 0 to the design criteria for NPSI, ITT Grinnell, and PSE for Comanche Peak.
(4) Provide documentation that there was mutual consent of the owner, manufacturer, and installer that Applicants need not consider ASME Code Case N-71-10 on those supports designed, ordered, and fabricated after May 11, 1981.
Applicants' Response to Orastion 2:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"The portions of this interrogatory as which Applicants have not previously responded are ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 2):
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories 2, 5 and 8 of CASE's fourth set as potentially ripe for response. However, upon l
further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
l Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider questions 2 and 5 to be ripe for response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985."
3.
Regarding AWS vs. ASME:
With regard to Affidavit of J. C. Finneran, R. C. Iotti and J. D.
a.
Stevenson Regarding Allegations Involving AWS vs. ASME Code Provisions, Attachment I to Applicants' 5/17/84 Motion for Summary Disposition of Certain CASE Allegations Regarding AWS and ASME Code Provisions Related to Design Issues:
34
ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 3a (cont.)
and Question 4 (1) Beginning on page 4 of the Affidavit, Applicants' affiants discuss at some length the provisions of Appendix XVII, paragraph 221(c) of Section III of the 1974 ASME Code:
(i) Where is it stated in AStiE that this is a compensatory requirement?
(ii) Isn't it a fact that Appendix XVII, Paragraph 2211(c) was subsequently deleted in the Winter 1978 Addenda?
(iii) Isn't it also a fact that Applicants adopted the deletion of Appendix XVII, Paragraph 2211(c)?
(iv) What was the purpose of Applicants' discussion of Appendix XVII, Paragraph 2211(c), in their Af fidavit,
and how was it relevant to the issue under discussion?
(v) Why didn't Applicants' affiants state that Appendix XVII, Paragraph 2211(c), had been subsequently deleted and that such deletion has been adopted by the Applicants?
Applicants' Response to Question 3:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
4.
Regarding axial restraints:
a.
On page 39 of the SIT Report (which was conducted October 13-December 2,1982 and January 18, 1983), it is stated that:
" Subsequent discussions with the Applicant indicated that this rotational restraint had also been identified during the Applicant's normal design review and that the pipe stress analysis was being modified to consider this rotational restraint."
However, Applicants have now changed their position on this (as ind.icated on pages 3 and 4 of the Af fidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr. Regarding Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints, which was attached to j
35
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 4 (cont.)
and Question 5 Applicants' 7/9/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Allegations Concerning Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints.
Regarding this:
(1) What has changed since Applicants told the SIT that they were going to modify their pipe stress analysis to consider this rotational restraint? Provide specific details.
(2) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which indicate that Applicants had advised the NRC of Applicants' change in position regarding this prior to 7/9/84.
Applicants' Response to Question 4:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
5.
Regarding damping factors:
a.
Regarding the Affidtvit of Robert C. Iotti Regarding Alleged Errors Made in Determining Damping Factors for OBE and SSE Loading Conditions, which was attached to Applicants' 5/16/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Alleged Errors Made in Determining Damping Factors for OBE and SSE Loading Conditions:
(1) Affidavit at page 4:
Dr. Iotti discusses a statement in the i
SlT Report at page 48:
"The Special Inspection Team concluded that these response spectra characteristics, together with the fact that the SSE damping value of 4 percent is twice the OBE l
damping value of 2 percent led to the condition expressed in Mr. Doyle's concern."
I Dr. Iotti then states that "The SIT was not clear that the use of 2 and 4 percent damping factors in the analysis of OBE and SSE conditions to which it refers was with respect to that aspect of the analysis in which closely spaced modal l
responses are combined using a coupling t' actor."
36
+
.. =. --_.
=-
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set j
Question Sa(1)(1) 1 (i) When (specific date) did Dr. Iotti begin working on this issue for Comanche Peak?
I (ii) What was the basis for Dr. Iotti's conclusion
.n it "The SIT was not clear.
." Did someone 11 him? If so, who (name, title, and organization),
and what was the basis for such individual's conclusion? Did Dr. Iotti discuss this matter with I
anyone on the SIT or with the NRC? Did Dr. Iotti assume that the SIT had meant to say something else in the SIT Report? Give specific details as to his basis.
a (iii) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3
i 3, of this pleading) which indicate that Applicants
)
or any of their agents informed the SIT or the NRC l
that "The SIT was not clear... " regarding this
]
matter, as well as all documents relating to the SIT's or the NRC's response (s).
l Applicants' Response to Question 5:
l In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE j
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 2):
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories 2, 5 and 8 of l
CASE's fourth set as potentially ripe for response. However, upon i
further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
kebster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider questions 2 and 5 to be ripe for l
response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985."
3 i
i i
t 37
~... -. _, _. _.. - -, - _ _.. _. -... _ -., _ _. _ _ _, _ _. - -. _. -. _, _ _ _, _ _.. _ _,,..,., _,.
ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 6 6.
Regarding Differential Displacements:
a.
Regarding the Affidavit of R. C.
Iotti and J. C. Finneran, Jr.
Regarding Differential Displacement of Large Frame Pipe Supports, Attachment I to Applicants' 6/22/84 Motion for Summary Disposition of CASE Allegations Regarding Differential Displacement of Large-Framed, Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Ceiling Pipe Supports:
On page 7 of the Affidavit, Applicants' affiants discuss the
" prompt attention" the problem.eceived:
(1) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) indicating that the problem received prompt attention, including all deficiency paper and its disposition.
(2) Provide the justification for proceeding with construction of these supports even though they were known to be "not in strict compliance with the PSE guideline" (i.e., what procedure gives Applicants the authority to ignore such guidelines, on whose authority was such a decision made (name, title, organization), etc.).
(We have read what is said in Applicants' Affidavit, so you need not repeat what is said there in answer to this question.)
(3) Why should the Licensing Board believe that this problem would have been adequately resolved if the S1T had not raised the issue?
(4) In Applicants' Affidavit, they state that "only these four supports were in violation of the guideline." They further state (page 8) that Applicants (at the recommendation of the SIT) made the guideline regarding this issue applicable to ITT and NPSI.
If the same PSE Guideline had also been in effect prior to that time for ITT and NPSI, would there have been additional ITT and NPSI supports which would have been in violation of the guideline?
(5) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3 of this pleading) in support of your answer to (4) preceding.
(6) Have Applicants or any of their employees (as defined on pages 1 and 2, item 2, of this pleading) subsequently discovered additional supports which would have been in violation of the PSE Guidelines in effect during the time period discussed in the preceding (i.e., 1981-1982)?
38
,n
~
ATTACHMENT 1 r
CASE's Fourth Set Question 6a(7) 1 (7)
If the answer to (6) preceding is yes, supply a list of, and complete details and all documents regarding, each such support.
i (8) On page 26 of the SIT Report (first full paragraph), it j
states:
i j
"During the course of the inspection, the Applicant informed the Special Inspection Team that these supports
-would be unable to withstand differential seismic displacements and were being redesigned."
Considering this statement, what was the basis for j
Applicants' belief (discussed on page 7 of the Af fidavit) that "the designs, although not in strict compliance with the l
PSE guideline, were adequate"?
{
(9) Who (name, title, organization) made the statement (quoted in (8) preceding) to the SIT? Is this individual (or I
individuals) still employed at Comanche Peak?
If not, supply such individual (s) last known address and telephone number.
(10) Provide all documents which led such individual (s) to the conclusion that "these supports would be unable to withstand differential seismic displacement."
(11) Provide all documents (including detailed analyses) which reflected that "similar suppo~rts designed by ITT and NPSI" "were adequate including consideration of differential seismic displacement" (as stated on page 8 of Applicants' Affidavit).
i t
t Applicants' Response to Question 6:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE
{
Interrogatories, Applicants. stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
39'
ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 7 7.
'Regarding Richmond Inserts:
a.
Answer the following questions regarding the Af fidavit of John C.
Finneran, Jr., Robert C. Iotti and R. Peter Deubler Regarding Design of Richmond Inserts and Their Application to Support Design (Attachment I to Applicants' 6/2/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Design of Richmond Inserts and Their Application to Support Design):
(1) On page 27 of the Affidavit, a bolt interaction equation is given. Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which gives the basis for this equation (i.e., design guidelines, specifications, procedures, codes, standards, recognized authorities, etc.).
(2) With further reference to (1) preceding, why isn't the tensile stress due to bending added to the direct tensile stress T?
(3) On page 25 of the Affidavit, Applicants' affiants discuss an interaction value of 1.75.
Where else within the industry is an interaction value greater than 1 considered to be acceptable? Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which support the acceptable of an interaction value greater than 1 (i.e., design guidelines, specifications, or procedures other than for Comanche Peak, codes, standards, recognized authorities, etc.).
Applicants' Response to Question 7:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
l
-40 L
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 8 8.
Regarding the upper lateral restraint:
Applicants' Response to Question 8:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE
' Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicante' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (pages 2 and 3):
r
" Applicants previously identified. interrogatories 2, 5 and 8 of i
CASE's fourth set as potentially ripe for response. However,-upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider questions 2 and 5 to be ripe for response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe i
support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985.
" Applicants are responding to interrogatory 8, concerning the upper lateral restraint. The CPRT intends to review previous analyses of this structure. Thus, information presented in Applicants' motion may ultimately be considered further in this proceeding. Accordingly, Applicants are responding to this i
interrogatory."
a.
Isn't it true that LOCA was not considered in the original design of the upper lateral restraint?
I Applicants' Response to Question 8:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
I-
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response 'c Rj e Discovery p
Requests, Applicants stated (pages 2 and 3N
" Applicants previously identific) s t ~.
- arorice 2, 5 and 8 of CASE'sifourth set as potentially.ipe i. response. However, upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider questions 2 and'5 to be ripe for l
response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe
(
support design issues is set forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed ~ June 28, 1985.
41
i ATTACHMENT I CASE's Fourth Set Question 8a (cont.)
and Question 8b
" Applicants are responding to interrogatory 8, concerning the upper lateral restraint. The CPRT intends to review previous i
.analysen of this structure. Thus, information presented in Applicants' motion may ultimately be considered further in this proceeding. Accordingly, Applicants are responding to this interrogatory."
Applicants further stated in response to Question 8.a. (page 3):
"No.
LOCA was considered in the original design of the upper lateral restraint in terms of mechanical loads. The loads resulting from the thermal expansion of the beam following a LOCA were not considered in designing the beam because the AISC Code does not require it, and even if one were to consider the upper lateral restraint as a Section NF support (which it is not), the ASME Code (Section NF-3231.1) does not require calculations to be performed to account for such thermal effects on the beam."
1 b.
What was Applicants' rationale for not considering LOCA in the
~
original design of the upper lateral restraint?
]
Applicants' Response to Question 8:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This' interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery 2
Requests, Applicants stated (pages 2 and 3):
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories 2, 5 and 8 of CASE's fourth set as potentially ripe for response. llowever, upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no ' longer consider questions 2 and 5 to be ripe for response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe support design issues is et forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985.
" Applicants are responding to interrogatory 8, concerning the upper lateral restraint. The CPRT intends to review previous analyses of this structure. Thus, information presented in Applicants' motica may ultimately be considered further in this proceeding. Accordingly, Applicants are responding to this interrogatory."
l tI 42
i ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 8b (cont.)
and Question 8c j
Applicants further stated in response to Question 8.b. (pages 3 and 4):
"The reasons for not considering LOCA thermal loads on the beam itself are indicated above.
Because thermal expansion loads on the concrete walls were not considered, based on engineering judgment, Applicants prepared the analyses presented in the affidavit to assess those loads."
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this c.
pleading) regarding your answer to b. preceding.
Applicants' Response to Question 8:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (pages 2 and 3):
" Applicants previously identified interrogatories 2, 5 and 8 of I
CASE's fourth set as potentially ripe for response. Ilowever, upon further specification of the nature and scope of the Stone &
Webster review, subsequent to Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report, Applicants no longer consider questions 2 and 5 to be ripe for response. Applicants' position regarding the status of pipe support design issues is et forth in Applicants' Management Plan, filed June 28, 1985.
" Applicants are responding to interrogatory 8, concerning the upper lateral restraint. The CPRT intends to review previous analyses of this structure. Thus, information presented in Applicants' motion may ultimately be considered further in this proceeding. Accordingly, Applicants are responding to this interrogatory."
Applicants further stated in response to Question 8.c. (page 4):
" Pertinent documentation as referenced in the above answers will be supplied as Exhibit 8.1."
CASE does not show that Exhibit 8.1 has been received; however, we will check further with Applicants regarding this prior to the prehearing conference to be certain one way or another regarding this.
?
43 i
L l
.._..,,--.-.e-4
~~-
" + ' ' ' ~ ~ " ~ ' " - " ' ' ' ' ~ ~ - * " " ' * ' " ' ' ' " " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " "'
o ATTACHME?TT 1 CASF's Fourth Set Question 9 9.
Regarding cable tray supports:
i Are cable tray supports / hangers considered to be safety-related?
a.
b.
Isn't it true that all cable tray support s at Comanche Peak have one original generic design?
i c.
Isn't it true that the effects of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) were not considered in the original generic design of cable l
tray supports?
d.
What was Applicants' rationale for not considering the effects of a LOCA in the original generic design of cable tray supports?
i Have Applicants now considered LOCA in the generic design of cable e.
tray supports?
J f.
If Applicants have considered LOCA in the generic design of cable tray supports, provide all documents which confirm this.
4 g.
Isn't it true that Applicants have neglected to consider the reduction of the yield point during a LOCA on any steel member on I
a cable tray support within the containment?
h.
What was Applicants' rationale for neglecting to consider the reduction of the yield point during a LOCA on any steel member on a cable tray support within the containment?
i 1.
Were the samples of cable tray supports which Cygna reviewed j
representative of the cable tray supports within the containment?
j.
Isn't it correct that the same generic design was used for cable tray supports within the containment as was used for the cable l
tray supports which Cygna reviewed?
f k.
Isn't it correct that.the FSAR requires that cable tray supports within the containment must consider the effects of LOCA?
1.
Isn't'it correct that. Applicants have not considered the effects of multimodal responses in the design of cable tray supports?
For what other systems or components have Applicants not m..
. considered the effects of multimodal responses?
[
n.
Isn't it correct that Applicants did not use the peak of the l
response spectra curve in their reanalysis in response to Cygna's questions in Phases 1 and 2?
If the answer to n. preceding is yes, what was Applicants' o.
I rationale for not doing so?
b 44
. ~.. _.. - _...., _,. -
a ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 9p p.
Has any technical audit by Gibbs & Hill, TUSI, or any other agent of Applicants identified that the Applicants have not utilized the 1.5 multimodal response factor?
q.
If the answer to p. preceding is no, what is Applicants' explanation for this?
r.
What have Applicants done since this was brought to Applicants' attention by CASE Witness Mark Walsh (through the May 1984 hearings) insofar as checking to see whether Applicants have also failed to utilize the 1.5 multimodal response factor for systems and components other than cable tray supports? Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding this, Have any technical audits or any other kind of audit, report, s.
review, etc., been done to determine this?
If so, provide all such documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading),
t.
What was Applicants' rationale for utilizing a normalization process (see Tr. 13,179/11-18) in the design of cable tray supports which did not include the effects due to the SSE condition on the Hilti bolts?
What have Applicants done to verify that the Hilti bolts will meet u.
manufacturers' requirements (i.e., a factor of safety of 4) under an SSE' loading condition? Provide all documents regarding this.
v.
What calculation has been used to verify the Hilti bolts will meet the manufacturers' standard of a factor of safety of 4 under an SSE loading condition? Provide all documentation of this, On what other systems and/or components within the plant did w.
Applicants or their agents utilize this normalization process?
Provide all documents regarding this.
x.
Isn't it correct that Applicants utilized a factor of 1.6 Fy under the SSE loading condition in the generic designs for cable tray supports?
y.
Isn't it correct that Applicants' FSAR states that steel structures within the containment cannot have stresses above.9 Fy under the SSE loading condition in tension and bending?
z.
Since steel structures within the containment cannot have stresses above.9 Fy under the SSE loading condition (according to Applicants' FSAR) in tension and bending, what was Applicants' rationale for utilizing the generic designs for cable tray 45 l
. - ~. =
s i
I ATTACittENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 9z (cont.)
and Question 10 i
supports which, when exercising Applicants' normalization process, l
would not exercise the limitation of stress under an SSE loading I
condition?
What did Applicants do to those cable tray supports which were aa.
overstressed as discussed in the May 1984 hearings? Provide all i
documents regarding this.
Applicants' Response to Question 9:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
l 10.
Supply all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relied upon in any way in the testimony of Applicants' witnesses who testified during the February and March 1984 welding hearings (both in the welding hearings and in the intimidation hearings regarding Henry or Darlene Stiner).
(If there is any doubt as to what specific documents we are requesting, contact Juanita Ellis for specific i
details.)
Applicants' Response to Questions 10-11:
4 In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These interrogatories concern Applicants' witnesses in the portion of this proceeding addressing welding allegations,'which the Board addressed in its Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) dated December 18, 1984 Applicants will object to each of these requests as concerning matters which are no longer at issue.
Applicants will also object to portions of these requests on other grounds."
l i
i
-46 l
l i
-n,
.,-----,,.n,---.
n.r.
e--,.
-,n.~.,
,-,,m.-..n,,,_,,,-,,
n,,,,-.,--a,.,,
c
.~.
i
's.
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 10 (cont.) and 4
I Question 11 J
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 6):
" Applicants object to this request for documents as not relevant j
to issues which remain in contention. The Board has issued its decision on welding issues and further discovery on that subj ect is not proper. CASE had ample opportunity over the course of the proceeding to complete such discovery."
j It should be noted that CASE detailed each specific item we desired in l
CASE's 8/7/85 Request for Supplementation of Applicants' Answers to l
Previouus CASE's Discovery Requests to Applicants (Question 7 of CASE's j
4/20/82 Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, pages 6 through 12 of CASE's 8/7/85 Request). Applicants' counsel Mr. Wooldridge indicated informally on 10/14/85 that Applicants continue to maintain their objection.
1 i
11.
With regard to Applicants' welding witnesses (who testified either in the September 1982 or February / March 1984 welding hearings, or had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings regarding l
Henry or Darlene Stiner), provide the following information for each Applicants' witness:
How many hours did Applicants' or Brown & Root's attorneys spend a.
with the witness? How long was each session? Give a specific time frame, including specific dates and times of day or night.
1 j
b.
Was the witness given any assignments in preparation of l
testifying?
During the time when Applicants' or Brown & Root's attorneys were c.
j preparing the witness, were the following individuals also present:
\\
(1) Ron Tolson?
(2) Tom Brandt?.
- (3)
W. E. Baker?
r l
47 l
i
...+,nn
.-,,,-n-.,,-n r-
,.-.,,,,,,,a,n.-.nn.,-
,,,.,n.,
,.,-,,,,.n,,,,,
- - ~, - _.,,,,
ATTACilMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set i
Question lic(4)
(4) David Chapman?
(5) Antonio Vega?
(6) Any of the witness's superiors (if so, supply the name(s), title (s), and organization (s) of each)?
i (7) Anyone else (if so, supply the name(s), title (s), and organization (s) of each)?
d.
How much time did the witness spend at work in preparing his testimony? How much overtime did the witness spend in preparing his testimony? How much time on week-ends or during his time of f from work did the witness spend in preparing his testimony?
4 Provide for inspection and copying copies of the witness's time e.
sheets-(or whatever means is used to indicate the date, time, and number of hours worked) for the three months before and the three i
months after each time the witness testified.
f.
How was it decided that the witness should testify (i.e., did he i
come to someone and say he wanted to testify, was he asked by someone to testify, was he told by someone that he would testify, etc.)? Give specific details, including who (name, title, organization) the witness individually talked to, who he talked to I
subsequently, etc.
g.
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding your answer to f. preceding.
h.
Has the witness had a change in shifts, position, pay scale, etc.,
between July 1,1982, and the present? Supply complete details, including all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this l
pleading, and including specifically job performance ratings, counseling' reports, etc.) regarding all such changes.
Include specifically information regarding the status of Cliff Brown.
1.
Has the witness quit or been terminated since he testified? If so, supply complete details, including all documents regardine l
}
this (including job performance ratings, termination slips, counseling reports, exit interviews, etc.).
Also include the witness's last known address and telephone number. ' Include specifically information regarding the status of Cliff Brown.
j Supply all documents regarding where the witness worked, who his immediate superior was, what crew he was on, during the time Henry and Darlene-Stiner worked-at Comanche Peak. Also state how the witness's job changed from his' former position.
f 48
- l-t
- ~.. _ -
i 4
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set i
Question lik k.
Which other welding witnesses were on the same crew as the witness at the time, or within six months of the time, the witness i
testified?
Identify each such other witness by name. Also i
specify the times during which each other welding witness was on the same crew as the witness.
1.
Was the witness promised, or was it implied that he would receive, j~
anything if he testified or for his testimony (for instance, free representation by Applicants' or Brown & Root's counsel if he got i
into trouble, transfer to the work he wanted to do, a raise, extra vacation benefits, extra time off, other long-term benefits, etc.)? If so, what specifically was he promised, or was it i
implied that he would receive? Was the promise or implication fulfilled?' Give all relevant details. Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to this.
Were there any notes, tapts, or other documents (as defined on m.
page 2, item 3, of this pleading) of meetings, discussions, etc.,
i E
regarding the witness's preparation for testifying?
i If the answer to m. preceding is yes, provide all such documents.
n.
o.
If a copy of his resume was not supplied at the time he testified, l
supply a copy now.
p.
Has the witness ever spent any time in jail? Does the witness have a criminal record? If the answer is yes, give specific 1
details and supply all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of f
this pleading) regarding this.
If the answer is no, describe what specific steps Applicants took to ascertain this; provide all i
documents regarding this.
t j
q.
Has the witness ever been involved in any way with drugs, either j
onsite or offsite? Has the witness ever spent any time in jail t
for drug use or the sale of drugs? Does the witness have a criminal record regarding the use or sale of drugs? Was the witness terminated regarding the use or sale of drugs?
If the i
answer to any of the preceding questions is yes, give specific details and supply all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding this.
If the answer is no, describe what specific steps Applicants took to ascertain this; provide all documents regarding this.
Applicants' Response to Questions 10-11:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE 1
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
t f
s 49
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 11 (cont.) and Question 12 "These interrogatories concern Applicants' witnesses in the portion of this proceeding addressing welding allegations, which the Board addressed in its Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) dated December 18, 1984. Applicants will object to each of these requests as concerning matters which are no longer at issue.
Applicants will also object to portions of these requests on other grounds."
In Apy11 cants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (pages 8 and 9, regarding Question 11):
" Applicants object to these requests as not relevant to issues which remain in contention. The Board issued its decision on welding issues in December 1984 CASE had ample opportunity to puursue discovery and/or question Applicants' witnesses on this topic over the course of the welding proceeding and during the hearings.
In addition, questions relating to witness preparation are not relevant to issues in the proceeding and are otherwise privileged in that they infringe upon attorney-client and attorney-work product prov11eges. Also, providing personnel information and employment flies with respect to individual witnesses, let alone persone who were not witnesses, would conflict with those employees' right to privacy. Finally, responding to these requests would be unduly burdensome. The requests would require Applicants to search personnel flies and records with respect to numerous persons, assuming their identitles could be determined in the first instance. Such an expenditure of time and resources with respect to matters which are no longer in litigation is unwarranted."
l i
12.
With regard to all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings, or testified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues) provide the following information for each Applicants' witness (if he/she testified more than once, for each time he/she testified, if appilcable):
How many hours did Applicants' or Brown & Root's attorneys spend a.
with the witness? How long was each session? Give a specific time frame, including specific dates and times of day or night.
b.
Was the witness given any assignments in preparation of testifying?
50
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 12c i
During the time when Applicants' or Brown & Root's attorneys were c.
preparing the witness, were the following Individuals also present:
(1) Ron Tolson?
i (2) Tom Brandt?
(3)
W. E. Baker?
(4) David Chapman?
(5) Antonio Vega?
(6) Any of the witness's superiors (if so, supply the name(s), title (s), and organization (s) of each)?
(7) Anyone else (if so, supply the-name(s), title (s), and organization (s) of each)?
d.
How much time did the witness spend at work in preparing his testimony? How much overtime did the witness spend in preparing his testimony? How much time on week-ends or during his time of f from work did the witness spend in preparing his testimony?
t Provide for inspection and copying copies of the witness's time e.
i sheets (or whatever means is used to indicate the date, time, and number of hours worked) for the three months before and the three months after each time the witness testified.
f.
How was it decided that the witness should testify (i.e., did he come to someone and say he wanted to testify, was he asked by someone to testify, was he told by someone that he would testify, etc.)? Give specific details, including who (name, title, l
organization) the witness individually talked to, who be talked to subsequently, etc.
g.
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding your answer to f. preceding.
i I
l h.
Has the witness had a change in shif ts, position, pay scale, etc.,
between July 1, 1982, and the present? Supply complete details, Including all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading, and including specifically job performance ratings, counseling reports, etc.) regarding all such changes.
Include specifically information regarding the status of Cordon Purdy, Thomas Brandt, Antonio Vega, David Chapman, Ronald Tolson, the
somewhat knowledgeable" engineers referred to by John Finneran.
51 I
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 121 1.
Has the witness quit or been terminated since he testified?
If so, supply complete details, including all documents regarding this (including job performance ratings, termination slips, counseling reports, exit interviews, etc.).
Also include the witness's last known address and telephone number.
Include specifically information regarding the status of Gordon Purdy, Thomas Brandt, Antonio Vega, David Chapman, Ronald Tolson, the "somewhat knowledgeable" engineers referred to by John Finneran.
j.
Supply all documents regarding where the witness worked, who his immediate superior was, what crew he was on, how the witness's job dif fered from his previous job.
k.
Was the witness promised, or was it implied that he would receive, anything if he testified or for his testimony (for instance, free representation by Applicants' or Brown & Root's counsel if he got into trouble, transfer to the work he wanted to do, a raise, extra vacation benefits, extra time of f, other long-term benefits, etc.)? If so, what specifically was he promised, or was it implied that he would receive? Was the promise or implication fulfilled? Give all relevant details. Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to this.
1.
Were there any notes, tapes, or other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) of meetings, discussions, etc.,
regarding the witness's preparation for testifying?
If the answer to 1. preceding is yes, provide all such documents.
m.
If a copy of his resume was not supplied at the time he testified, n.
supply a copy now.
l Has the witness ever spent any time in jall? Does the witness o.
l details and supply all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of have a criminal record? If the answer is yes, give specific this pleading) regarding this.
If the answer is no, describe what specific steps Applicants took to ascertain this; provide all documents regarding this.
j p.
Has the witness ever been involved in any way with drugs, either onsite or offsite? Has the witness ever spent any time in jail for drug use or the sale of drugs? Does the witness have a criminal record regarding the use or sale of drugs? Was the witness terminated regarding the use or sale of drugs?
If the answer to any of the preceding questions is yes, give specific details and supply all documents (as def8ned on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding this.
If the answer is no, describe what specific steps Applicants took to ascertain this; provide all documents regarding this.
52
_ _ _ ~... _ - -. _
. - - ~. - - -
1 -
4 4
ATTACHMENT 1
)
CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 12, and Question 13 j
Applicants' Response to Question 12:
[
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Repiles to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
I j
" Applicants will object to this Interrogatory."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 11):
i l
"See response to Question 11."
i f
Applicants' 7/3/85 response to Question 11 stated:
4 l
" Applicants object to these requests as not relevant to issues which remain in contention. The Board issued its decision on welding issues in December 1984. CASE had ample opportunity to
}
puursue discovery and/or question Applicants' witnesses on this 1
topic over the course of the welding proceeding and during the hearings.
In addition, questions relating to witness preparation are not relevant to issues in the proceeding and are otherwise j
privileged in that they infringe upon attorney-client and l
attorney-work product prov11eges. Also, providing personnel i
information and employment flies with respect to individual j
witnesses, let alone persone who were not witnesses, would i
confilet with those employees' right to privacy. Finally, respording to these requests would be unduly burdensome. The requests would require Applicants to search personnel flies and records with respect to numerous persons, assuming their 1
identitles could be determined in the first instance. Such an expenditure of time and resources with respect to matters which are no longer in litigation is unwarranted."
i l
13.
Is James Stembridge still employed at Comanche Peak?
If the answer is i
no, did he quit or was he terminated? If the answer is no, provide all i
details and documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading),
including specifically (but not limited to) job performance ratings, termination slips, counseling reports, exit Interviews, etc.
Also provide his last known address and telephone number.
?
Applicants' Response to Questions 13-16:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE 1
l Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
I l
u l
53 l
an e
7-..,.
,-n.,,.e--..-.m.,---
-m--g----.,-4 y,.ww,
-,-. m g.4,,
wem.,naw,,-,v-,-,,w---,-,__
, p,,- e y,--m
- egm, e ww w-g n,,w s
8 ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 13; I
and Questions 14 and 15 "These interrogatories relate to witnesses or persons involved in the welding allegations. Accordingly, Applicants object to these requests as not being relevant to an issue which remains in the proceeding."
14.
Provide copies of Henry Stiner's personnel records, including but not limited to certifications, eye examinations, job performance ratings, termination slip, counseling reports, exit interviews, etc.
(Applicants will be provided with a signed notarized release by llenty Stiner.)
Applicants' Response to Questions 13-16:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These interrogatories relate to witnesses or persons involved in the welding allegations. Accordingly, Applicants object to these requests as not being relevant to an issue which remains in the proceeding."
15.
Provide copies of Darlene Stiner's personnel records, including but not limited to certifications, eye examinations, job performance ratings, termination slip, counseling reports, exit interviews, etc.
(Applicants will be provided with a signed notarized release by Darlene Stiner.)
Applicants' Response to Questions 13-16:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These interrogatories relate to witnesses or persons involved in the welding allegations. Accordingly, Applicants object to these requests as not being relevant to an issue which remains in the proceeding."
l 54 l
ATTACHMENT l CASE's Fourth Set Questions 16, 17, and 18 16.
Supply documentation that Armund Braumuller had been a welder for 28 years at the time he testified in the March 1984 hearings.
Applicants' Response to Questions 13-16:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These interrogatories relate to witnesses or persons involved in the welding allegations. Accordingly, Applicants object to these requests as not being relevant to an issue which remains in the proceeding."
17.
Isn't it a fact that Applicants do not routinely check to ascertain whether or not an employee or a potential employee has a criminal record or is involved in the use or sale of drugs?
Applicants' Response to Questions 17-22:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
18.
Isn't it a fact that Applicants normally do not check to ascertain 1
whether or not an employee or a potential employee has a criminal record or is involved in the use or sale of drugs unless they plan to attempt to discredit him, for instance if he/she is testifying in a DOL case against Brown & Root or the Applicants, or in an operating license hearing?
Appilcants' Response to Questions 17-22:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE i
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
55
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Questions 19, 20, and 21 19.
If the answer to 17 or 18 preceding is no, answer the following questions regarding Henry Stiner:
a.
When and how did Applicants first become aware that Mr.
Stiner had a criminal record?
b.
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which support your answer to a. preceding.
Applicants' Response to Questions 17-22:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
20.
If the answer to 17 or 18 preceding is no, answer the following questions regarding William Dunham; a.
When and how did Applicants first become aware that Mr.
Dunham had a criminal record?
b.
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which support your answer to a. preceding.
Applicants' Response to Questions 17-22:
~
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
l i
t l
21.
If the answer to 17 or 18 preceding is no, provide details, and all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding, what techniques and methods Applicants usually employ to check out whether or not an employee has a criminal record or has been involved l
1.. the use or sale of drugs.
Is there a procedure which sets forth Applicants' policy in this regard; if so, provide it (original and all revislens).
l 56
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 21; Questions 22 thru 24 Applicants' Response to Questions 17-22:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
22.
Provide.the basis and all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) for your answer to 21. preceding.
Applicants' Response to Questions 17-22:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
"These requests as (sic) not relevant to an issue in the proceeding."
23.
During a conference call (CASE believes it was 9/30/84), the Licensing Board ordered Applicants and NRC Staff to respond to the substantive portions of CASE's interrogatories and requests to produce regarding drug use at Comanche Peak. Provide Applicants' response now.
Applicants' Response to Question 23:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 8):
i j
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
l 24.
a.
Isn't it true that virtually all of the supports in the North Yard i
Tunnel have now been changed due to design changes?
b.
Isn't it true that many or most of the changes referenced in a.
preceding were made to floor-to-celling hangers?
57
e ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 24c c.
Isn't it true that many or most of the changes referenced in a.
preceding were to change the hangers so that they now have slip j ints?
d.
sn't it true that many or most of the changes referenced in a.
preceding were made in response to the Walsh/Doyle allegations?
e.
Isn't it true that the change to slip joints was one of the recommendations made by Messrs. Walsh and/or Doyle in the operating license proceedings?
f.
Provide a list of all supports / hangers in the North Yard Tunnel which have been modified or redesigned; include in your answer whether or not such supports are safety-related, the class of each support, and the system of which each support is a part.
g.
Provide drawings and calculations (the ones just prior to the change, and the ones where the change was made) for each support / hanger listed in f. preceding. Alse provide any other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to such change.
h.
For each support / hanger listed in f. preceding, state exactly how the support was changed and the specific reason for the change.
I.
(1) How many other hangers / supports have been modified or redesigned in response to the Walsh/Doyle allegations?
(11) Supply a list of all such supports, each supports's location, the system each support is part of, whether or not each support is safety-related, and the class of each support, and the system of which each support is a part.
(111) Provide drawings and calculations (the ones just prior to the change, and the ones where the change was made) for each support / hanger listed in (11) preceding. Also provide any other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to such change.
(iv) For each support / hanger listed in (II) preceding, state exactly how the support was changed and the specific reason for the change.
Applicants' Resoonse to Question 24:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
58
5 ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 24 (cont.); and Ouestion 25 "This Interrogatory is not ripe for response and is, in part, otherwise objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 13):
" Applicants object to this request as irrelevant to issues in the proceeding.
' Hangers in the North Yard Tunnel' are not as a group in contest. Further, Applicants object to this request as unduly burdensome. CnSE requests that Applicants prepare lists and research thousands of documents to prepare information concerning matters irrelevant to issues in this proceeding."
J 25.
a.
List each and every method which has ever been used by Applicants to identify nonconforming conditions. For each such method, include in your answer:
(1) Whether or not the method is still being used.
(2) The time period during which the method was/has been used.
(3) Whether the method is used for construction or for design, or both.
(4) Whether or not the method is trended.
(5) The time period during which the method was/has been trended.
(6) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of i
this pleading) setting forth the criteria for which method is to be used.
Include the original and all revisions of each specification, procedure, instruction, memo, etc. relating to this.
(7) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which substantiates that each method has been/is being trended.
(8) How many documents (NCR's, DDR's, etc.) have been generated over the life of the plant for each such method?
59
. ~.. -..-..-._. -
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 25a (9) How many items are still open at the present time of documents generated for each such method?
(10) Include the various punch lists in your responses to items 1 through 9 preceding.
b.
In the past, have non-conforming designs been issued to the field and constructed before the criginal design organization completes its review of changes (such as those made by CMC, DCA, etc.)?
(1) If the answer is yes, is this still being done?
(2) If the answer to (1) preceding is no, provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which relates to this change of policy, procedure, or pract ice.
c.
Provide all documentation that Cygna was to have reviewed the adequacy of Applicants' implementation of design OA.
Give specific and complete details.
d.
Provide a brief summary of Applicants' current position regarding the identification and correction of non-conforming designs. Give specific and complete details, If it has not already been provided in response to another e.
question, provide all documentation of Applicants' present position regarding the handling of non-conforming designs, including the identification and correction of such non-conforming designs.
f.
Provide copies of all CAR's and SDAR's (and all other documents which may be used to identify significant deficiencies or potentially significant deficiencies) and all documents which relate to each.
g.
Provide copies of all CAR and SDAR logs (and logs for all other documents which may be used to identify significant deficiencies).
h.
Provide copies of all procedures, instruct ions, memos, etc. which set forth how the determination is made as to: whether or not a deficiency is significant, when it is to be reported to the NRC, who is to made such determinations, etc.
Provide the original and all revisions for each such document.
1.
Who (name, t itle, organization) is authorized to made the determinat ions discussed in h. preceding? Who (specifically) has l
been authorized to made such determinations in the past.
Include l
in your answer the specific time periods during which each such Individual was so authorized.
60 l
ATTACitMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 25j j.
List each and every method which has ever been used by Applicants or their employees (as defined on pages 1 and 2, item 2, of this pleading) to make design changes. For each such method, include in your answer:
(1) Whether or not the method is still being used.
(2) The time period during which the method was/has been used.
(3) Whether the method is used for construction or for design, or both.
(4) Whether or not the method is trended.
(5) The time period during which the method was/has been trended.
(6) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) setting forth the criteria for which method is to be used.
Include the original and all revisions of each specification, procedure, instruction, memo, etc. relating to this.
(7) Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which substantiates that each method has been/Is being trended.
(8) How many documents have been generated over the life of the plant for each such method?
(9) llow many items are still open at the present time of documents generated for each such method?
l (10) include the various punch lists in your responses to i
items 1 through 9 preceding.
I l! -
Applicants' Response to Question 25:
l In t.pplicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Appilcants. stated (page 9):
)
{
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
I l
61
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Ouestions 26 thru 28 26.
Provide for inspection and copying all invoices or other documentation of purchase for all pencil grinders which were purchased for use during the time Henry Stiner and Darlene Stiner worked as welders at Co.aanc he Peak. Divide all such documents into time periods during which the pencil grinders would have been used.
Applicants' Response to Questions 26- ?-
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the proceeding."
27.
Provide for inspection and copying all procedures, instructions, or other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which state that all welders shall have pencil grinders and/or that all welders shall have preheat bottles. Provide the original and all revisions of each such document.
l Applicants' Response to Questions 26-31:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These Interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the proceeding."
28.
Are NCR's currently being kept with the package of each support, etc.?
Applicants' Response to Questions 26-31:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE j
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "These Interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the proceeding."
62
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Questions 29 and 30 29.
a.
Who pays the ANI's?
b.
Provide for inspection and copying all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) pertaining to the vork done by the ANI's, who they shall report to, who pays then, who has the authority to hire and fire them, limitation of their scope of work, etc., including but not limited to all contracts, agreements, or other related documents.
App lic ant s ' Response to Questions 26-31:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogator!es, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the proceeding."
30.
a.
Isn't it a fact that Brown & Root's ASME N-stamp is due to expire on 3/15/85? If not, when is the expiration date?
b.
Does ASME usually require a reinspection, resurvey, or audit before renewing an N-stamp?
Has ASME contacted Applicants or their employees (as defined on c.
pages 1 and 2, item 2, of this pleading) regarding such a reinspection, resurvey, or audit?
d.
Has Brown & Root, Applicants, or any other employee of Applicants centacted ASME regarding the renewal of the N-stamp, a reinspection, a resurvey, or an audit?
Supply all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this e.
pleading) regarding items a. through d. preceding.
f.
Has ASME made any reinspections, resurveys, or audits since the one which was made just prict to the last renewal of Brown &
Root's N-stamp?
g.
If the answer to f. is yes, supply all documents (as defined on rige 2, item 3, of this pleading) regarding each such reinspection, resurvey, or audit.
63 i
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 30; Ouestions 31 and 32 Applicants' Response to Questions 26-31:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the proceeding."
- 31. Applicants were supposed to have been sending the Licensing Board and parties a regular update of the items to be completed in preparation for fuel load, and Applicants' current estimate of the date of fuel load.
What was the rationale or reason for Applicants' having a.
discontinued sending the Licensing Board this information?
b.
Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) related to this matter, c.
Provide Applicants' current estimate of the date of fuel load for Unit 1 and for Unit 2.
d.
Provide Applicants' current estimate of the percentage of completeness for each unit of Comanche Peak.
Provide a summary (similar to what Applicants have provide to e.
the Board in the past) of the state of readiness for fuel load of each item in the plant.
Applicants' Response to Questions 26-31:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 R.yort Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These Interrogatories are not relevant to issues in the prc4a d.ng."
32.
a.
Following the public statements made by Nancy Williams, Cygna
)
Project Manager (see 2/21/85 DALLAS MORNING NEWS article, attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant Information i
l 64 l
ATTACilMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 32 (cont.)
and CASE's Supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Stability of Pipe Supports), did anyone with Applicants, their counsel, or their employees (as defined on pages 1 and 2, item 2, of this pleading) contact Ms. Williams (either directly or indirectly, such as through Cygna's attorney or Ms. Williams' superiors),
Cygna's counsel, or any other employee of Cygna regarding Ms.
Williams' statements and/or Cygna's position on the stability issue?
Applicants' Response to Question 32:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Repiles to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 13):
"Yes."
b.
If the answer to a. preceding is yes, provide a summary of such conversation (s) or contact (s), and all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) relating to such conversation (s) or contact (s).
Applicants' Response to Question 32:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Appilcants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
In Appilcants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 13):
"To our knowledge there was one instance of contact between Applicants and Cygna regarding Cygna's statements regarding stability. This conversation was documented on a Cygna Communications Report and will be made available to CASE.
(CASE should have, In any event, already received the report through the normal distribution process."
(The Communications Report was attached to Applicants' 7/3/85 pleading.)
65 l
l
ATTACIIMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Questions 33 and 34 33.
Provide CASE with Applicants' responses to each and every question asked Informally (or formally) by the NRC Staf f under the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement).
Provide any additional or supplementary responses to CASE at the same i
time you provide them to the Staff.
Applicants' Response to Question 33:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"These Interrogatories are rlpe for response."
In Appilcants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated (page 14):
" Applicants presume that CASE refers to the Board's reopening of d iscove ry.
The NRC Staf f has not requested information pursuant to the Board's reopening of discovery in the December 18, 1984, itemorandum. CASE would, of course, be provided with respones to such Inquiries which may be forthcoming in the future."
34.
Provide CASE with all Information provided by Applicants to the NRC Contention 5 Panel. Provide any additional or supplementary responses to CASE at the same time you provide them to the Contention 5 Panel.
1 Applicants' Response to Question 34:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
i "These Interrogatories are ripe for response."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partlai Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated (page 14):
" Applicants do not communicate directly wlth the NRC Contention 5 Panel. Communications between Appilcants and the NRC Staf f are through Mr. Noonan. Aprilcants transnit Information to Mr. Noonan in letters which are either provided directly to CASE or are made available in the NRC public document rooms. Applicants may also provide Information to the NRC Contention 5 Panel through pre-noticed public meetings which, of course, CASE is free to attend or to obtain a transcript of the meeting. Consequently, CASE already has free access to Information that is provided to the NRC Contention 5 Panel."
66 l
i l
___,,.-_,_,c.-----
- ~ ~ = -
"--~'r-*- ~ -
- ~ " " ' ~
~ * ~
- ' - ~ " ' - - ~ ~ ~ ' "
aTTACHME!Tr 1 CASE's Fourth Set Ouestion 35 35.
In CASE's 2/4/85 Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility, page 6, question 3(c) asks:
" Provide copies of all contracts, letters of understanding, or other instructions to or from Cygna as to the scope, criteria, protocol, and/or independence of cygna's review and activities regarding Comanche Peak."
In the attached 2/21/85 FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM article, it a.
is stated:
"The utility has paid Cygna $3 million since 1983 to conduct an independent assessment of plant design safety, a company spokesman said."
(1)
Is the $3 million figure stated in the article correct?
Applicants' Response to Question 35:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response, but may be objectionable in part."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated in response to Question 35.a.(1) (page 15):
"Yes, at that point in time. Approximately $4.3 million has been paid to Cygna, to date."
(11) Provide all contracts, letters of understanding, or any other correspondence or documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) to or f rom Cygna regarding any amounts paid or to be paid (whether a set figure is specified or not) to Cygna by Applicants.
Appilcant s ' Response to Question 35:
i In Appilcants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "This interrogatory is ripe for response, but may be objectionable in part."
67 l
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 35a(11) (cont.);
and Question 36 In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants stated in response to Question 35.a.(11) (page 15):
" Applicants are willing to disclose the total amount paid to Cygna for its efforts, and are providing purchase orders. However, we obj ect to providing information relating to Cygna's fees in that such information is not relevant to issues in the proceeding.
(See Tr. 12,810-11). Further, such data is likely to be considered proprietary by Cygna."
(Received purchase orders.)
- 36. The attached 2/20/85 articles from the DALLAS TIMES HERALD, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, and TiiE FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM Indicate that Applicants' witnesses David Chapman and Antonio Vega have been reassigned and will no longer be at Comanche Peak.
The articles also indicate that Messrs. James R. Wells, Phillip Halstead, and David McAfee will be replacing Messrs. Chapman and Vega at Comanche Peak, but that these three newcomers will not be permanent employees.
a.
Please comment on the accuracy of the preceding comments, and provide complete and specific detalls regarding these changes in personnel.
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Appilcants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.a.
(page 17):
" Applicants informed the Board and parties ot the changes in i
personnel mentioned by CASE in a letter to the Board from Mr.
l Wooldridge, Counsel for Applicants, dated March 21, 1985. Further information regarding these changes is provided in response to the i
subparts b. through 1. of this interrogatory."
68 l
i ATTACH"ENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 36b i
b.
What was the reason for these changes?
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE l
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
1 l
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.b.
(pages.17 and 18):
" Applicants initisted these changes in an effort to provide a I
fresh perspective to the management of quality assurance activities at Comanche Peak and to provide additional management experience relating to nuclear quality assurance programs.
Applicants have provided additional information regarding our views concerning management in our response to the Board's request for ' Current Management Views' (see Memorandum and Order (Case Management Plan), May 24, 1985 at 5), filed June 28, 1985, as part 4
of Applicants' Management Plan."
i 1
Provide the job resumes for Messrs. Wells, Halstead, and c.
McAfee.
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE i
Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.c.
(page 18):
" Applicants have provided the requested information with the portion of FSAR Amendment 55 transmitted to CASE with Applicants' i
i Management Plan."
i 2
69 i
h
,. -. ~,.,
.m._,,,
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 36d d.
Ilov long is each of these three Individuals expected to remain in his 'ew position at Comanche Peak?
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Appilcants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in esponse to Question 36.d.
(page 18):
"It is presently anticipated that these individuals will be with TUGCO through the licensing and startup of Unit 2."
For each of these three individuals, provide copies of all e.
documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading),
including all contracts, letters of understanding, or other instructions to or from these three individuals from Applicants or their employees (as defined on pages I and 2, item 2, of this pleading) as to the scope, criteria, protocol, independence, salary and benefits, term of contract, and any other relevant data regarding each individual's review and activities at Comanche Peak.
l Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.e.
(page 18):
I 70
ATTACilMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 36e (cont.)
" Applicants object to providing employment contracts with the identified individuals.
Information such as salary and benefits is confidential, and irrelevant to issues in this proceeding.
In any event, each individual's resume and job responsibilities are set forth in the portion of FSAR Amendment 55, transmitted to CASE with Applicants' Management Plan. There are no instructions to these individuals regarding their ' review and activities at Comanche Peak.'
" Finally, AppIlcants do not know what CASE intends by the terms
' criteria, protocol, independence,' and, thus, cannst respond with respect to that aspect of the request. However, we point out that the individuals have, as has always been the case for positions with responsibility for the QA program, the necessary authority and organizational freedom required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B."
f.
Was there ever (or will there be) any kind of understanding (written or oral) to the effect that any or all of these three Individuals is to accept Applicants' representations at f ace value (similar to the agreement regarding J. J.
Lipinsky's acceptance at face value of the statements made in Mr. Brandt 's af fidavit).
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.f.
(page 19):
"No.
By providing this response, Applicants do not, however, intend to acquiesce directly or indirectly in CASE's characterization of matters relating to Mr. L1pinsky."
71 l
l
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Question 36g g.
If the answer to f. preceding Is yes, provide all documents (as defined in item 3, page 2, of this pleading) including contracts, relating to such understanding.
If no documents exist, supply specific details of such understanding, the name(s) (and organization and title) of each person with whom any of the three Individuals discussed such understanding, a brief summary of all discussions, the date of each such discussion, and any other pertinent details. Provide specific detailed information.
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.g.
(page 19):
"Not applicable."
h.
Provide:
(1) a listing of all public documents (including pleadings, Proposed Findings, etc., flied by CASE) which have been provided to each of the three individuals (by Applicants or others);
(2) a listing of all other documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) which have been provided to each of the three individuals; (3) all documents (such as cover letters, memoranda, etc.)
by which such documents were provided; (4) if the documents were handed to the Individuals on site, please so indicate; (5) who (name, organization, and title) provided each such document to each of the three individuals; 72
. - - ~. _ _, _. _ =
ATTACH!!ENT I CASE's Fourth Set Question 36h(6) 4 (6) the date on which each such document was supplied to each of the three Individuals; and (7) copies of all documents listed in (2) preceding.
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
l4 p
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is ripe for response. Aspects of the Interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.h.
(page 19):
f j
"These Individuals have access to and authority to obtain copies of any documents that have been filed in this proceeding by any party or documents within the flies of their respective organizations. These has been no separate ' transmittal' of
]
documents to these persons."
i I
a 1.
With further reference to d. preceding, CASE is concerned that these Individuals, whom we assume Applicants consider to be experts in quality assurance / quality control, will be leaving just at the time Applicants will need expertise In implementing its QA/QC program for operations.
l l
Please provide specific details and all documentation I
regarding how Applicants plan to deal with this potential L
problem.
Applicants' Response to Question 36:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE i
l Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
'"This interrogetory is ripe for response. Aspects of the
[
j interrogatory are, however, objectionable."
\\
In Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, Applicants' John Beck stated in response to Question 36.1.
(page 19):
73
,_ _./
ATTACllMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 361 (cont.); and Questions 37 and 38
" Applicants object to this question as requiring conjecture and speculation by Applicants."
37.
Please review all of CASE's previous interrogatories and requests to produce, and supplement your answers as necessary to comply with 10 CFR 2.740(e).
(When you are ready to do this, please call Juanita Ellis; we can probably assist in cutting down the scope of this request at that time.)
Applicants' Response to Question 37:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"The instant request is beyond the scope of authorized discovery.
Applicants note, however, that Applicants supplement responses to discovery requests as appropriate in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.740(e)."
It should be noted that CASE officially filed on 8/7/85 CASE's Request for Supplementation of Applicants' Answers to Previous CASE's Discovery Requests to Applicants; and Applicants responded informally on 10/14/85. This will be discussed further elsewhere.
- 38. With regard to the Licensing Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement):
a.
On page 9, the Board stated:
"We also invite Applicants to review their own testimony and to disclose all their errors in the course of this proceeding (or the related docket) in a single filing, together with explanations."
Do Applicants plan to take the Board up on its offer?
b.
If the answer to a. preceding is yes, what is the time frame l
Applicants anticipate this will be done?
Please supply responses to the concerns detailed by the l
c.
Licensing Board in its Order.
74 w
,w e
y y q
~
1 4
l l
\\
l ATTACllMENT 1 i
CASE's Fourth Set Response to Question 38; and Questions 39 and 40 1
. Applicants' Response to Question 38:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "See discussion, supra, regarding Applicants' motion for reconsideration."
39.
a.
Provide the basis for Mr. Brandt's 9/28/84 Affidavit indicating
]
that there are no problems with the protective coatings. Supply l
j complete details, including all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) on which Mr. Brandt relied in any way in i
reaching his conclusions.
Applicants' Response to Question 39:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is not ripe for response."
40.
Provide the following individuals for depositions:
C. C. Randall i
1 John Merritt S*t Applicants' Response to Question 40:
In' Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This' request is not ripe for response, and also is objectionable on other grounds."
i i
75 i
1 I
p
o ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fourth Set 4
Questions 41 and 42
]
41.
CASE would like to set up some onsite discovery time to look at some i
specific items (primarily, but not totally, documentation, to check out the retrievability of documents, etc.).
i Applicants' Response to Ouestion 41:
In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
l "This request for inspection is beyond the scope of authorized discovery. To the extent CASE intends to inspect documentation, the request is not ripe for response."
42.
Provide the basis for each of Applicants' affidavits on which the Board relied to close out items, as listed in the Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues). Provide all documents (as defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) on which each affiant relied in any way; please identify each item as to which Affidavit it applies to.
I Applicants' Response to Question 42:
'In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants stated (page 9):
"This interrogatory is irrelevant to issues which remain in the proceeding."
1 2
i f
I 76 i
, _ _, _ _ _. _. _... _. ~., _.
ATTACHMENT 1 1
CASE's Fifth Set (Gen. Responses)
I CASE'S 3/4/85 FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY See also: Applicants' 4/25/85 First Partial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility",
Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants' 6/28/85 Second Partial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of interrogatories re: Credibility, Applicants' 7/1/85 Third Partial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories re: Credibility, Applicants' 7/3/85 Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests, and Applicants' 7/5/85 First Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests 1
Applicants' general Responses:
In Applicants' 4/25/85 First Partial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce "Re: Credibility," Applicants stated:
" Applicants' response is governed further hy the Board's February 15, 1985, Memorandum (Motion for Protective Order), whereat the Board granted, in part, Applicants' motions for protective orders by restricting Applicants' obligation to respond to CASE's discovery requests regarding credibility [ footnote omitted] 'to s
discovery related to the validity or reliability of tests and samples' (Memorandum at 1). Accordingly, Applicants respond only to those requests which are within the scope of the authorized discovery.
"The responses provided below concern primarily those requests l
which Applicants consider to be beyond the scope of authorized discovery. Applicants are in the process of preparing responses to the remaining requests."
l In Applicants' 6/7/85 Report Regarding Status of Replies to CASE Interrogatories, Applicants. stated, regarding all open interrogatories (pages 1 and 2):
"The Board has indicated that Applicants should respond if the request is 'likely to survive regardless of what the Staff does' (see Memorandum (Clarification of LBP 85-16)). Applicants believe 77 l
t
.c
-, + - -. -,,,,, --. -. - -
,.,-..,-n-
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fifth Set (Gen. Responses)(cont.)
the test under the Board's standard is whether actions by the NRC Staff, or Applicants in response to NRC findings, will supersede the issues to which the interrogatories are directed, and thereby render answers to those interrogatories unnecessary. Applicants will submit a statement identifying the issues which they believe will remain for litigation, in accordance with the Board's May 24, 1985, Memornndum and Order. The responses below reflect Applicants' preliminary position regarding the ripeness of issues.
A detailed explanation of that position will be set forth in the above-described plan /2/
"L2/ Applicants acknowledge that future Board decisions regarding the issues to be litigated may alter the obligation to respond to particular requests. The risk of delay associated with the possibility of such changes is, of course, borne by Applicants. We note, however, that the Board has acknowledged that it will afford Applicants an opportunity to respond to the Staff's findings before reaching decisions on the current state of the record (see Memorandum (CASE Motion for Evidentiary Standard), March 12, 1985 at 2).
- Thus, responding now to interrogatories that Applicants do not believe will remain for litigation would be premature and a waste of the Board's and parties' resources."
Specifically regarding CASE's Fifth Set, Applicants stated (pages 10 and 11 of Applicants' 6/7/85 pleading):
"These interrogatories primarily concern Applicants' motions for summary disposition regarding pipe support design. Applicants provided a partial response to these requests on April 25, 1985.
In that response Applicants identified those requests which did not concern the adequacy of tests or samples in Applicants' motions for summary disponition, which was the scope of discovery authorized by the Board (see Memorandum (Motion for Protective Order), February 15, 1985t.
"In view of the Board's clarification as to the status of discovery, Applicants have reexamined these requests to ascertain whether requests not concerning tests and samples are otherwise ripe for response. Applicants intend to continue to provide responses relating to the tests and samples regardless of whether they concern issues which are likely to be otherwise disposed of and, thus, would not be ripe for response. Accordingly, we set forth below our position regarding the ripeness of the remaining 78 l
l
l 1
ATTACHME!TT 1 CASE's Fifth Set (Gen. Responses)(cont.);
and CASE Questions requests /5,/.
Interrogatories not addressed below have been or are already in the process of being responded to.
As discussed previously, Applicants consider requests which concern topics to be addressed by Applicants' program not to be ripe for response.
"f 5/ Applicants retain their previously stated objections to the interrogatories already responded to where those objections
-were other than that.the interrogatory did not concern tests and samples."
In Applicants' 6/28/85 Second Partial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories re: Credibility, Applicants stated, in part (pages 1 and 2):
" Applicants' response is governed further by the Board's February 15, 1985, Memorandum (Motion for Protective Order), wherein the Board granted, in part, Applicants' motions for protective orders by restricting Applicants' obligation to respond to CASE's
^
discovery reuqests regarding credibility (footnote omitted] 'to I
discovery related to the validity or reliability of tests and samples' (Memorandum at 1).
Accordingly, Applicants respond here only to those requests which are within the scope of the authorized discovery f2/.
"/2/ Applicants have also agreed to respond to other requests that are 'rlpe' for discovery, i.e..,
the subject matter of the interrogatories is likely to remain the subject of litigation.
(See Applicants' June 7, 1985, Report Regarding Status of Replies To CASE Interrogatories.) Responses to those requests will be transmitted in the near future."
Almost identical wording as that quoted above from Applicants' 6/28/85 pleading was contained in Applicants' 7/1/85 Third Fartial Response to CASE's Fifth Set of Interrogatories re: Credibility (at pages 1 and 2).
CASE Question No.
CASE regrets that, due to lack of time, we have been unable to prepare a detailed breakdown for our Fifth Set as we did for our First through Fourth i
Set in time to include in this pleading. We believe that such a listing would be helpful to the parties and especially to the Board, and are hopeful (but cannot. promise) that we can provide it in time for the prehearing conference.
i 79
___,y
,_.m., _. _.
_y..
ATTACHMENT 1 CASE's Fifth Set CASE questions The following is a list of specific questions in our Fifth Set regarding which there is still some controversy, need for further clarification or discussion, etc.:
1 3a 3b 3c 3e(2) 3f 4a-c 4e 6a 6e 7
8a 8e 9
10f 10g 10h 11 15a 15e 16a(6) 16a(11)(ii) 17a(1) 17a(3)(11) 17a(4) 17a(11) 18b(2) 18e(5 20c 23 25 26b 27b(lv) 27b(v) 27b(vi) 27b(v11)(a and b) 27c 28 29 30 80
o ATTACHMEhT 1 CASE's Fifth Set CASE questions (cont.)
31 32 33 34 First 35 Second 35 36c 36d 37 38b 38c 38d 39 CASE is hopeful, and believes, that we should be able to make some sort of agreements with the Applicants regarding some of these; however, it appears that many will remain to be addressed at the prehearing conference.
81 l
ATTACHKENT 2 OBJECTIONS / ISSUES -- CASE'S FIRST THROUGH FIFTH SETS RE: CREDIBILITY f
Provided below is a listing of specific objections and/or issues with which the Board will be asked to deal during the upcoming prehearing conference on discovery matters, in regard to the following CASE pleadings:
CASE's 1/17/85 First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/4/85 Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/25/85 Third Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 2/25/85 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility CASE's 3/4/85 Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility These items are categorized, for the most part, by a brief statement of Applicants' objection (which applies in whole or in part); Applicants objected to some interrogatories for more than one reason.
(We began including a brief statement of the topic, to give the Board an idea of the subject matter; however, we did not have time to continue for all of the Sets of interrogatories.)
1.
Obj ect - not relevant to an issue in the proceedings:
i Questions in CASE's Second Set:
5 - damage studies for Units 1 and 2 (including relating to unacceptable or questionable designs)
Questions in CASE's Third Set, which generally dealt with the firing of i
document control personnel, document control audits and problems, etc.
(Groupings in some instances are CASE's):
3 thru 7 - Firings of Dobie Hatley, Billie Orr, Mcddle Gregory, l
etc., and document control i
8 thru 11 - Audits and other document control documents 12 and 13 - Documents and investigations regarding Doble Hatley's termination i
14 - Tape recordings, transcripts and notes of tape recording of j
meeting (s) with employees and management personnel, etc., re:
work of satellite 306 and/or Doble Patley's work and/or termination 15 and 16 - Stop work orders and related documentation l
1
ATTACKMENT 2 1.
Obj ect - not relevant to an issue in the proceedings (cont.):
Questions in CASE's Third Set (continued):
17 - Document control center computer shutdowns and related documentation 18 thru 37 - Specific documents (NCR's, PCP's, QAI's, BN's, SDAR's, DCP's, other memos, etc.)
40 - Specific time cards 41 - Information supplied to Cygna 42 - Information regarding control stamps and their use r
50 - Follow-up question to questions 1-49 52 - Access to computer (at time of Cygna audit and later) and related documents 54 and 55 - Specific questions regarding the supervient of the Computer Operations Group and other document control employees, their job status, etc., and related documents 56 - Investigation (s) by NRC (other than TRT) regarding prenotification of Cygna, potential problems with satellites 4
or satellite system, and related documents 57 - Secret audit re: satellites and/or satellite system made just prior to 2/7/84 firing of Doble Hatley 58 - Will Applicants agree to suply to the Licensing Board as a i
Board Notification of new and significant information, answers to all the questions, and all the documents requested herein, as well as the depositions of Heyward Hutchison on 2/11/85 and Frank Strand on 2/12/85 in the Doble Hatley DOL hearing?
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
10 - Request for Applicants to supply all documents relied upon in testimony of Applicants' witnesses in February and March 1984 welding hearings and in intimidation hearings regarding Henry
+
~nd Darlene Stiner.
It should be noted that CASE specified the particular documents (taken directly from the transcript of the February and March welding hearings) in our 8/7/85 Request for Supplementation of Applicants' Answers to Previous CASE's 2
ATTACHMENT 2 1.
Object - not relevant to an issue in the proceedings (cont.):
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set (continued):
10 (continued):
Discovery Requests to Applicants (pages 6 through 12). We requested that Applicants supplement their response to Question 7 of CASE's 4/2/82 Tenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, as well as in accordance with the Board's ruling during the 3/23/84 hearings at Tr.
11964/21-11965/13. (The documents which the Board ordered be provided have never been supplied by Applicants.)
11 - Various interrogatories regarding Applicants' welding witnesses, changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 12 - Various interrogatories regarding all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings, or testified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues), changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 13 - Inquiry as to whether or not James Stembridge (at whose direction Darlene Stiner performed illegal welding) is still employed at Comanche Peak, his job performance ratings, termination slips, counseling reports, exit interviews, etc.,
last known address and telephone number, etc.
14 - Request for all of Henry Stiner's personnel records (upon receipt of signed notarized release from him, to be provided) 15 - Request for all of Darlene Stiner's personnel records (upon receipt of signed notarized release from her, to be provided) 16 - Documentation that Armund Braumuller had been a welder for 28 years at the time he testified in the March 1984 hearings (as he stated) 17 through 22 - Various questions and requests for documents regarding drug abuse and criminal records of Applicants' employees 24 - Questions and requests for documents regarding hangers / supports which have been modified or redesigned in response to the Walsh/Doyle allegations 26 - Invoices or other documentation of purchase for all pencil grinders which were purchased for use during the time Henry-and Darlene Stiner worked-as welders at Comanche Peak 3
l l -
e-ATTACHMENT 2 l
1 1.
Object - not relevant to an issue in the proceedings (cont.):
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set (continued):
27 - All procedures, instructions, or other documents which state that all welders shall have pencil grinders and/or that all welders shall have preheat bottles 28 - Are NCR's currently being kept with the package of each support, etc.
29 - Various questions regarding the ANI's 30 - Request for information and documents regarding reinspections, resurveys, audits performed by ASME prior to Brown & Root's ASME N-stamp expiration and/or renewal (since previous discovery requests were answered re: 1981 ASME survey, regarding which there are documents and testimony in our hearings) 31 - Various questions regarding the regular update Applicants were supposed to have been sending the Board and parties of 1
the items to be completed in preparation for fuel load, etc.
42 - Provide basis for each of Applicants' affidavits on which the Board relied to close out items, as listed in the Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues); all documents on which each affiant relied in any way 2.
Object - Board has already ruled:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
10 - Request for Applicants to supply all documents relied upon in testimony of Applicants' witnesses in February and March 1984 l
welding hearings and in intimidation hearings regardi.3 Henry and Darlene Stiner.
11 - Various interrogatories regarding Applicants' welding witnesses, changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 12 - Various interrogatories regarding all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings, or testified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues), changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 4
4 I
ATTACRMENT 2 3.
Object - Beyond scope:
j Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
41 - Request for onsite discovery Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
4 6e f
7 i
4.
Not ripe (not likely to survive as an issue):
j Questions in CASE's Second Set:
i 1 - Applicants' commitment to MS-58 and MS-69 on pipe support i
design (discussed during 4/84 Cygna hearings)
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
r 1 - Potentially unstable supports 3 - AWS vs. ASME C
4 - Axial restraints 6 - Differential displacements 7 - Richmond inserts l
l 9 - Cable tray supports 23 - Drug use at plant. (During a conference call believed by CASE to be 9/30/84, Board ordered Applicants and NRC Staff to respond to the substantive portions of CASE's interrogatories and requests to produce regarding drug use at Comanche Peak; provide Applicants' response now.)
25 - Methods and criteria used to identify nonconforming conditions; non-conforming designs; documentation that Cygna was to have reviewed adequacy of Applicants' implementation of design QA; logs and copies of CAR's and SDAR's; methods and criteria for making design changes; documentation for preceding 39 - Basis for Mr. Brandt's affidavit indicating there are no problems with the protective coatings (including documents) 5 w-w
-m
- -v,.vi.
errew-ra wy v--'-N-
e wreisiv,wirgiw e,is w-my e-et'W" - - * ' --'94 W T
- 'fet'P e tw w'rF e-ge.--mveyg-req--e Pem-*t w he r *= g ew 9-,ryg v --orr gye-+
=rvmagr-
- y i-e wwm-9 e
ATTACHMENT 2 t
4.
Not ripe (not likely to survive as an issue) (continued):
{
40 - Provide C. C. Randall and John Merritt for depositions 41 - Onsite discovery to inspect documentation, to check out the retrievability of documents, and to look at specific items, etc.
Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
J 9
11 4
E 5.
Moot or not ripe because Applicants' Action Plan, CPRT, or Stone and Webster is addressing:
I Questions'in CASE's First Set:
1 - Liner plates l
Questions in CASE's Second Set:
I - Applicants' commitment to MS-58 and MS-69 on pipe support design (discussed during 4/84 Cygna hearings) 1
)
4 - Professor who was to review design matters under Applicants' 1984 Plan: documents reviewed; site visits; contracts, letters of understanding, other instructions, etc.
Questions in CASE's Third Set:
1, 2, 27, 28, 43-49, 51, 53 - generally dealt with the firing of document control personnel, document control audits and problems, etc.
l l
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
i 2a(1) thru (4), 2a(5)(1), 2a(7), 2a(8), 2a(9), 2b - A500 steel 5 - Damping factors Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
23 25 6
ATTACHHENT 2 6.
Unduly burdensome:
Questions in CASE's Second Set:
2 - Documents provided to Cygna Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
11 - Various interrogatories regarding Applicants' welding witnesses, changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 12 - Various interrogatories regarding all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings, or testified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues), changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 24 - Questions and requests for documents regarding hangers / supports which have been modified or redesigned in response to the Walsh/Doyle allegations Questions in CASE's Fifth Se':
1 1
t 3c 3f 6e 15e 27b(iv)(a&b) 27b(v)(a&b) 27b(vi)(a&b) 27c 35 (first) 35 (second) 36d 38d 39d 7.
Objectionable on other grounds:
Questions in CASE's Third Set:
39 - Other documents regarding document control (duplicative, too l
broad, not proper) l 7
j ATTACHMENT 2 7.
Objectionable on other grounds (continued):
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
2a(5)(ix) - Copies of all documentation (calculations, drawings, etc.) for each of the [10] pipe supports listed in your answer to (v11) preceding (duplicative, too broad, unduly burdensome) 40 - Provide C. C. Randall and John Merritt for depositions (not ripe for response, and also is objectionable on other
[ unspecified) grounds)
Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
3c (unduly broad, burdensome and in part duplicative) 4e (irrelevant to representativeness of sample) 10f,g,and h (not relevant to validity or reliability of sample) 28 (not relevant to tests or samples)
First 35, Second 35, 36d, 38d, 39d (overly broad) 8.
Relevant only to document control (however, not ripe):
Questions in CASE's Third Set:
1, 2, 27, 28, 43-49, 51, 53 - generally dealt with the firing of document control personnel, document control audits and problems, etc.
9.
SSER's have sddressed the problem, or NRC Staff has investigated (other than SSER's) and decided:
i Questions in CASE's First Set:
1 - Liner plates l
2 - Protective coatings 9
8 7
ATTACHMENT 2 l
10.
CASE is limited to witness Neumeyer's testimony relating to liner plate travelers for the Unit 2 refueling cavity and transfer canal:
Questions in CASE's First Set:
1-All documentation not already supplied regarding the liner plate documents for Unit 2; all documentation regarding the liner plate documents for Unit 1 11.
Applicants referred CASE to their discussion re: Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
38 - Are Applicants going to take Board up on its of fer to " review their own testimony and to disclose all their errors in the course of this proceeding... "?
If so, when?
Supply responses to the concerns detailed by the Board in its 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement).
12.
Obj ect ; requires conjecture and speculation by Applicants:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
a 361 - CASE is concerned that these individuals [ Messrs. James R.
Wells, Phillip Halstead, and David McAfee], whom we assume Applicants consider to be experts in quality assurance / quality control, will be leaving just at the time Applicants will need expertise in implementing its QA/QC program for operations.
Please provide specific details and all documentation regarding how Applicants plan to deal with this potential problem.
9 l
ATTACHMENT 2 13.
Attorney / client privilege:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
i 11 - Various interrogatories regarding Applicants' welding witnesses, changes in their employment, and other credibility questions i
j
- - Various interrogatories regarding all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the antimidation hearings, or testified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues), changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 14.
Would conflict with employees' right to privacy:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
11 - Various interrogatories regarding Applicants' welding witnesses, changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 12 - Various interrogatories regarding all other of Applicants' witnesses (who had depositions taken or testified in the intimidation hearings, or tectified in the other portion of the hearings, or filed affidavits including but not limited to regarding the Walsh/Doyle issues), changes in their employment, and other credibility questions 15.
Applicants did not provide answers from Cygna; said go direct to Cygna:
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
I l
1-Specific questions and requests for documents regarding
~
Cygna's 2/19/85 letter re: Stability of Pipe Supports (copy of which was attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant Information and CASE's Supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Stability of Pipe Supports) 10 l
j ATTACIOiENT 2 1
1 16.
Applicants have not provided any information i.. response to requests regarding Unit 2:
Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
3b 4a,b,&c i
6a l
15a 27c i
4
{
17.
Applicants' responses are questionable, not fully acceptable, not sufficiently responsive, or insufficient.
(We will be discussing these further with Applicants in the hope that we can remedy this.)
Questions in CASE's Second Set:
3(a&b) and maybe (c) 1 Questions in CASE's. Fourth Set:
i 32b i
36e Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
3e(2)?
4a-c l
8a&c 16a(6) l 16a(11)(ii) 17a(1) 17a(3)(ii) 17a(4) i 18b(2) 18e(5) 20c 23 25 26b 27b(vil)(a,b) 29 30 31 32 i
33 l
1 i
l 11 t
i
,-__-..,r,,
...._,--,_.-,,,.--.m-,,-..
- -.,,,,.,,,,., _ _, ~,.. - ~. - -., -. - - _ -.
ATTACHMENT 2 sA.
17.
Applicants' responses are questionable, ' Jt fully acceptable, not sufficiently responsive, or insufficient (continued):
7 Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
36c 37 38b,c,&d 39a,b,c,6d I
18.
Applicants stated they had supplied or will supplied, but (as near as CASE can determine at this time) they have not yet aupplied. (We will be discussing further with Applicants.)
~
Questions in CASE's Fourth Set:
8e - Exhibit 8.1 upper lateral restraint Questions in CASE's Fifth Set:
1 3a 17a(11) 18e(vi) 4 ll l
l l
i 12
a ATTACilMENT 3 OTHER SPECIFIC ISSUES In addition to the objections / issues listed in the preceding Attachments, CASE will also request that the Board deal with'the following (which are not listed in order of importance) during the upcoming prehearing conference:
1.
Underlying many of Applicants' objections is their refusal to recognize that credibility is at issue in these proceedings, even in the face of the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement). This is especially apparent in many Applicants' objections regarding CASE's First through Fifth Sets Re: Credibility (see Attachments 1 and 2 hereto).
2.
Applicants' position, and the position of the Board, regarding discovery from Cygna needs to be discussed and clarified. Applicants l
both have responded themselves to CASE's interrogatories and told us that we should go directly to Cygna. CASE needs to know what procedure should be followed regarding discovery requests to Cygna.
This is obviously of concern procedurally. It is also of concern because if we go directly to Cygna, we want to be assured that Applicants will not attempt to bill us at what appear to be Cygna's consultant's rates.
(This has already happened in one instance, when we asked for three copies of Cygna's Phase 3 Report for Jack Doyle, Mark Walsh, and Mrs. Ellis, although we have not yet paid the billing; we will be discussing this further with Applicants).
CASE's position is that documents received from Cygna should be at no charge to CASE, for three reasons:
(1) Applicants' counsel agreed to supply to CASE three copies at no charge of all documents relating to the design / design QA and/or Walsh/Doyle issues at the time we agreed to Applicants' last year's plan (although, with the exception of right before hearings and their Phase 3 Report, Cygna usually sends us only one copy of their routine filings, such as telecoms, etc., which CASE then reviews and copies for Messrs. Walsh and Doyle); (2) there is precedent in these proceedings (regarding O. B. Cannon witnesses in l
Docket 2 hearings) for documents being provided at no charge since Cygna (like 0. B. Cannon) is a Board witness; and (3) all costs of copies for the operating license hearings will be included in their cost of service and paid for by the utility's ratepayers. This is a very important matter to have settled, since it will directly affect CASE's discovery regarding Cygna matters.
3.
Applicants' position, and the position of the Board, regarding discovery from Applicants' third party consultants (CPRT, etc.) needs to be discussed and clarified. Clarification is necessary because of the wording in Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order (received by CASE on 10/23/85). Applicants stated (page 2, item 1):
1 l
l
ATTACHMENT 3 l
"The Applicants have disregarded the instructions contained in paragraphs numbered 1-2 and 4-7 under the hearing ' Instructions,' which are inconsistent Iwth the Rules of Practice.
This is of concern because CASE is no longer certain of the extent of knowledge of the individuals answering the interrogatories or how complete, reliable and accurate their representations are (due to possible lack of knowledge). Further, it appears that Applicants are now excluding their contractors, consultants, other employees (as defined by CASE in our interrogatory requests), etc.
It is also not now clear to CASE whether or not Applicants are currently including the minor owners of Comanche Peak as one of their sources of information.
4.
Although CASE has not yet had sufficient time since receiving Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order to thoroughly review and analyze Applicants' responses, a quick scanning has already revealed that there are numerous additional issues raised by those answers. CASE will supplement this pleading as quickly as possible to put the Board and parties on notice regarding these matters; however, we note that Mrs. Ellis has jury duty beginning 10/28/85, CASE has to respond to a pleading by Applicants to the Appeal Board by 11/4/85, followed by a meeting between the NRC Staff and Applicants on 11/5/85 and 11/6/85 (and possibly 11/7/85), so it may be after the 6th or 7th before we can supplement.
5.
In their 10/22/85 Responses to CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories, Applicants appear to be ignoring the f act that there are design issues in these proceedings (this misconception appears to have been carried through in Applicants' pleading to the Appeal Board). This matter needs to be cleared up, and proper and adequate answers provided regarding design' issues.
6.
Applicants, in their responses, have steadfastly refused to provide any information regarding Unit 2, although this is a licensing proceeding for both Unit I and Unit 2.
CASE believes that there may be significant changes being made in Unit 2 as compared to Unit 1, and we.
j have attempted to pursue this through a few discovery requests, without success. We will be asking that the Board order Applicants to properly respond to CASE's legitimate discovery requests regarding Unit 2 (which have to date been relatively few). We are hopeful that it will not be necessary at some point in time to move for separate hearings on the licensing of Unit 2 (although we put the Board and parties on notice almost two years ago that this was a possibility).
l 7.
CASE would like to get a firm commitment from the Board and parties that all future hearings will be held either in Dallas or Arlington (rather than in Fort Worth). We do not believe that there is any opposition to this; and we seek a firm commitment so that CASE can make l
a decision about whether or not to lease an apartment in Fort Worth.
l l
2
~
ATTACIMENT 3 l
8.
One of the continuing issues in controversy is whether or not the l
Board, in its 12/18/84 Memorandum (Recpening Discovery; Misleading Statement)(first full paragraph, page 9) wherein it reopened discovery "concerning samples, testing and any other aspect of test 11 mony whose credibility they now decide to investigate within the time limits" intended that CASE's interrogatories regarding samples and testing (CASE's 3/4/85 Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility) to be limited, regarding testing, to actual physical testing (as Applicants maintain) -- or did the Board mean to allow inclusion of analytical testing, which is CASE's position.
(An example of this may be found in Question 7 of CASE's 5th Set.)
Only the Board can correctly interpret its Memorandum in this regard, and we trill be asking that it do so following arguments by Applicants and CASE at the prehearing conference.
9.
What is the legal status of statements made by a party in a Motion or paper where the Board resonds to that statement before the opposing party has a chance to file anything.
(CASE suggests that the Board clarify that when this happens, it is understood that the failure of the ot7er party to say anything is irrelevant to their future rights to argue that issue, and that the only thing that the other party may be prejudiced by is the Board's decision itself.)
10.
CASE had previously received an extension of time until 10/23/85 to file a Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Board's 10/3/85 Order. We decided not to do so; we will instead be addressing portions of our concerns in response to the Applicants' Petition for Directed Certification, and are including as propopsed topics for the prehearing conference two other specific matters which seem appropriate for resolution in this manner (see items 3 and 9 preceding).
11.
Clarification that the Board's statement in the first full paragraph of page 2 of its 10/2/85 Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification) ("Intervenors must submit new issues in a tinely manner when information relevant to those matters raises their suspicions.")
is not meant to supersede and replace the Board's previous position that evidence should be presented "in a controlled, organized fashion" and not in "a series of dribs and drabs" (see Board's 8/15/83 Memorandum and Order (Motion to Supplement and Correct Record).
12.
Limitations by Applicants of what they will supply and when they will supply it (for instance, therc are usually no handwritten notes supplied, although they ara asked for; see also discussion in Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce" and Request for Protective Order, at pages 3 and 4, which will be discussed further in accordance with item 4 preceding).
3 i
l t
__