ML20235G501
| ML20235G501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3986 CPA, NUDOCS 8707140274 | |
| Download: ML20235G501 (171) | |
Text
_
_M, t e,
'87 JUL 10 Pl2:35 7/6/87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (mailed 7/8/87)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 96 L WT 1...
t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-BOARD In the Matter of
}{
Docket No. 50-445-CPA
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
(Application for a COMPANY, et al.
}{
Construction Permit)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
l l
CASE'S SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO " CONSOLIDATED INTERVENERS" (Set No. 1987-1) and MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER I
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound F,nergy), Intervenor herein, hereby i
files this, its first Supplementary Reciponse to Applicants' 3/18/87 j
Interrogatories to what Applicants have termed " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) [1/.
-/1/ See Footnote 1 of our 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-i) and Motion for a Protective l
l Order. On 6/12/87, during a telephone call initiated by Applicants' l
Counsel, it was agreed that the time for Applicants to file any motion to compel would be deferred until CASE has completed all of its initial responses (with the understanding that additional supplementation might be filed later); at that time, it was also agreed that the date for CASE to file its additional initial supplementary responses was deferred until July 6, 1987. It was later agreed that the date for l
mailing CASE's 7/6/87 Supplementary Response could be extended until 7/8/87. Since such Response is referenced extensively throughout the pleading as CASE's 7/6/87 Response, it is being shown as indicated in the upper right-hand corner of this page.
b) 8707140274 870706 1
D PDR ADOCK 05000445
\\
G PDR
}
CASE adopts and incorporates herein by reference the General Responses and Objections set forth on pages 2 and 3 of our 6/0/87 Response. We also specifically incorporate by reference the materials listed on pages 1 and 2, items 1 through 7, of Meddie Gregory's 6/15/87 Response to Applicants' interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order. We also would object to, and move for a protective order against, having to go into more extensive detail than contained herein at this time, until we have completed necessary discovery, and until and unless CASE decides to prepare the detailed listings and/or analyses which Applicants are requesting in many of their interrogatories.
It should be
]
noted, however, that we do plan to supplement our responses.
As steted at the end of our 6/6/87 Response, we had intended that this supplement begin with a continuation of our responses to Interrogatory 1.d)(3); however, we are at this time also supplementing our responses to Interrogatory 1.c), so we are beginning this supplement with that item.
CASE's Supplementary Responses Applicants' Interrogatory 1:
"You have alleged (Amended Contention 2) that:
)
i
"'The delay in construction of Unit 1 was caused (sic)
Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants.'
"1.
With regard to your allegation, please specify all instances of the Applicants' ' intentional conduct' upon which you base your allegation.
In your response, please:
"a)
Identify all person (s) who engaged in this intentional Conduct.
2
1 "b)
Specify the date(s) upon which the conduct was undertaken.
"c)
Explain precisely how the alleged intentional conduct I
caused a delay in construction of Unit 1; and, "d)
Cite all documents which support your conclusions."
Answer:
As stated previously, CASE does not yet know all of the instances of Applicants' intentional conduct, and we have not combined into one analysis or document all instances of which we already know of Applicants' s
intentional conduct upon which our allegation is based; there are numerous instances throughout the extensive record in the operating license proceedings and elsewhere.
See further discussion in our 6/6/87 Response.
1.c) (7)
(e) We hereby supplement our answer to 1.c)(7)(e). As stated in our 6/6/87 Response, " Applicants have been slow to, or have refused to, admit errors; see also (8) l following."
l This includes failures by the Applicants to promptly and adequately report and track nonconforming conditions, including potentially significant adverse conditions in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e), which also has applicability to answer 1.c)(9).
1.c) (9) In our 6/6/87 Response, we stated the following and gave some
]
specific examples:
i "The testimony and inferences of Applicants' witnesses and attorneys in the operating license proceedings has often been misleading and has (in CASE's opinion) often contained material false statements.
Such testimony and inferences have 3
_)
helped to obscure the facts, wasted much time and resources, and resulted in still further delay in the prompt identification and correction of problems at the plant.
"Some specific examples of this include, but are not limited to, the following:"
We hereby supplement our answer to 1.c)(9) by adding a fourth specific example, 1.c)(9)(d); see also answer 1.c)(7)(e) l preceding.
l (d) In the Board's 7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions) at pages-5 through 10, item A, the Board discussed the issue of rock overbreak (or overexcavation).
In the Board's l
l 9/23/83 Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues),
I following receipt and consideration of objections i
1 submitted by each of the parties, the Board again j
addressed this matter (pages 37 through 40, items A, B, and C), and stated, in part (footnotes omitted):
CASE argues that the Board should have found that applicant attempted to mislead the NRC concerning the extent of rock overbreak at the site. It argues that it should have amended its Final Safety Analysis Report j
(FSAR) to reflect the full extent of the
]
overbreak.
It also states that applicant's l
[ paragraph] 50.55(e) report to the Commission J
created the impression that the overbreak was limited to the excavations for Units 1 and 2 Reactor buildings rather than being 'so extensive that there was no point in associating particular fractured rock with the excavation of a particular building.'
4 L
"We agree that the FSAR should have been amended to disclose the overbreak problem accurately and to comply with full disclosure principles governing applications for an operating license. Failure to amend the FSAR reflects adversely on the seriousness with which applicant takes its obligations as an applicant for a license. On this matter, we are surprised to find that applicant appears to have lef t a void in the record.
Considering that its integrity was being challenged, this seems a strange silence.
" Failure to describe the rock overbreak problem in a reasonable manner in the FSAR constitutes a material false statement under 10 CFR 50.100, as CASE has argued. Because this violation of the regulations is mitigated by the filing of a 50.55(e) report covering the situation, we will not attach any independent licensing significance to this event. However, we may consider this event subsequently.
"We disagree with CASE's objection concerning the report of rock overbreak to the NRC.
I Although applicant has not directly contradicted CASE's statement about the narrow wording of its report, the report that it filed indicated a problem of sufficient dimensions to trigger a staff investigation.
Given the likelihood that such an investigation would be conducted, we find no i
serious harm in applicant's apparent understatement of the overbreak condition in its 50.55(e) report. CASE's objection does not provide us with any reason to believe that a differently worded report would have caused the NRC national office to become directly involved, as CASE suspects. Furthermore, officials in the national office are aware of regional reports.
NRC is one organization.
We make nothing of CASE's allegation concerning a possible motivation by applicant to limit the investigation to the regional otfice.
Consequently, the objection concerning overbreak is denied."
The Board again addressed this matter in its 10/25/83 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order of 5
i
September 23, 1983) at pages 11 and 12, item XI (footnote omitted):
" Applicant alleges that the Board made an error of fact or law concerning its findings that Applicant's FSAR contains a ' material 3
false statement' about rock overbreak.
Although our use of applicant's definition of misrepresentation to analyze the cited FSAR section does not correct our initial j
impression about this issue, we are persuaded that the FSAR text and accompanying figures are sufficiently thorough that there is no ground for questioning applicant's
)
' seriousness' in pursuing its application in a thorough and honest fashion. Hence, we consider any possible misrepresentation to be I
a technical matter that has no influence on the license application and is therefore beyond our jurisdiction."
j CASE is not certain whether or not the Licensing Board would still consider any possible misrepresentation to be a technical matter that has no influence on the license application and is therefore beyond its
]
jurisdiction, as it stated in October 1983. The situation was far different in October 1983:
Applicants were continually trying to rush the Board to close the record and to come to a favorable decision to grant Applicants an operating license for Comanche Peak.
It is now obvious that had the Board done so at that time, it might well have proved disastercus.
Whether or not the Board's position as stated in October 1983 would still apply in the operating license proceedings, however, CASE believes it is important in 6
a
the context of issues we have raised in the CPA. The current situation which exists is as follows:
Applicants have never changed this portion of their Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and what remains in the FSAR is the same incomplete information which was I
contained in the FSAR in 1983 (i.e., no mention j
whatsoever of the damage to the Fuel Building foundation, even though it was the most severely damaged of all; no indication of the true extent of the damage to the foundation under Comanche Peak; etc.).
The credibility and reliability of'any favorable conclusions which might have been drawn because of NRC Region IV's I
inspections, reports, etc., has been called into strong question by the NRC's own personnel.
There is a new NRC office, with new personnel, just coming on board to work on the Comanche Peak project; there are relatively new consultants, designers, etc., hired by Applicants, as well as some reshuffling of previous personnel at the plant.
The plant is being studied fror a variety of 5
aspects, including with regard to the seismic response spectra analyses.
It is reasonable to assume that many of the new people will be reviewing and, at least in some instances, relying on Applicants' FSAR for information which they should be able to assume is both accurate and complete.
It should not be necessary for anyone to have the additional knowledge that one must 7
4 look to the r.ranscript of the 1982 hearings, the Licensing Board's Orders, or anywhere else to arrive at the true picture regarding the extent of damage to the very foundation of Comanche Peak. The FSAR should be j
accurate and should speak for itself.
Instead, with I
regard to this particular matter, what is contained in
+
the FSAR is misleading and (in CASE's opinion) still i
contains what amounts to a material false statement --
i and a material false statement upon which someone might well rely and reach an erroneous conclusion, perhaps with serious consequences for the public health and i
safety.
The importance and possible future repercussions of Applicants' failure to revise their FSAR regarding this matter is thus a much more serious matter at this point in time than it might have been in 1983. Applicants' failure to recognize this fact and to have failed to i
already have changed their FSAR also reflects adversely upon Applicants' competence, credibility, and the seriousness with which Applicants regarded the Board's comments in its 1983 Orders regarding the rock overbreak.
1.d) It should be noted that CASE may also rely upon Board Orders, pleadings, etc., in the CPA proceedings; specific documents have not yet been decided upon. We may also rely upon NRC Inspection Reports; 8
l t
the Licensing Board in the Operating License Proceedings stated in its 1/3/84 Memorandum and Order (Additional Scheduling Order), at page 7:
VIII.
Inspection Reports
. Based on CASE's filing, it becomes obvious that there are relevant inspection reports that are not part of our record and that have apparently not even been served on the Board as Board notifications. The Board expects to consider i
all relevant inspection reports in its final determination and gives official notice to that effect."
The following is the second partial listing of supporting documents, which will be supplemented at such time as CASE may further analyze and compile documents in the manner requested by Applicants:
l 1
1.d)(1) 2/21/85 Draft Teledyne Preliminary Consulting Report on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station -- Piping and Support Design (bound in following page 5 of the 2/26/85 Meeting j
between TU and NRC re: CPSES Piping and Support Design):
)
Concern 4, pages 9 through 12; Recommendations to the Staff, last paragraph bottom of page 21 continued through end of page 22.
May 1985, SSER No. 11 (NUREG-0797), Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, by U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, especially page 0-9 and Appendix P.
l 10/31/85 Board's Memorandum and Order (Procedural Rulings; l
Board Concern About GA for Design), especially item II.
i Stress Allowables for Active Valves, pages 4 and 5.
1 5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Crimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
9
i i
6/9/87 Letter from Applicants' Mr. Counsil to NRC Staff, and related documents re: SDAR CP-87-10; the 6/9/87 letter (copy
]
of which is attached as CASE Attachment F hereto) states, in i
part:
{
"On May 11, 1987, we verbally notified your Mr. I.
Barnes of a deficiency involving design change document control measures which may not have been l
adequately established prior to the implementation of tbe current design modification program. This is an interim report of a potentially reportable item under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
"The scope of this issue affect; only Unit 1 Design Modifications issued for systems / subsystems previously turned over to and accepted by CPSES Operations."
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan D0L hearings and related proceedings.
CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
I Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the
)
testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' i
failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(2) 10/25/83 Board's Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order of September 23, 1983), especially pages 8 and 9, which state, in part:
"V.
Near White Blast those procedures, which apparently were 10 t
i
)
1 defective, were in effect for about three months during the period when Mr. Hamilton worked for applicant.
"We will subsequently, consider whether applicant's I
follow-up inspection of protective coatings provides adequate assurance concerning the safety of coatings that were installed during the period of deficiency.
"VI.
" Testimony of a trained quality assurance inspector concerning the appearance of paint and its inability to pass an adhesion test, is adequate to raise a prima facie case. There needs to be some follow-up inspection to ascertain the truth and generality of this testimony.
Mr. Hamilton's failure to write an NCR on this item is not dispositive since it apparently was not within the scope of Mr. Hamilton's responsibilities.
Based on the Hamilton testimony and our findings about the Atchison firing, we conclude that Mr. Hamilton thought that such an NCR would not have been welcome.
"VII.
Demeaning of a person's Character In the referenced section of our opinion, we were critical of applicant for its incomplete responses. We were critical of applicant because it did not respond adequately to what it described as the ' vague' allegation of Mr. Hamilton.
In addition, we noted that at times applicant has demeaned the character of a witness -- here we refer primarily to Mr. Stiner -- and has refused to answer the allegation.
This we consider incorrect."
l l
l 10/4/84 Board's Memorandum (Testimony of O. B. Cannon Witnesses), especially pages 1 and 2, which state, in part:
"On reflection, the Board has decided to call R. B.
Roth, President of O. B. Cannon & Son, Inc. and Joseph L. Lipinsky as Board witnesses.
Because of Mr. Lipinsky's established expertise in paint quality assurance we are concerned about whether Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Applicants) paid proper attention to the preliminary findings communicated orally (or in 11 A
writing) to site personnel, about whether 0. B.
Cannon's ' services were terminated or suspended when Mr. Lipinsky discovered and communicated serious j
problems in paint quality assurance, and about the J
circumstances surrounding Mr. Lipinsky's apparent decision to cooperate with Applicants by minimizing i
I the validity and importance of his own work.
Mr.
Roth is being called becauwe he apparently was involved in investigating and resolving the problem of the ' leak' of the Lipinsky report."
l 5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC
)
Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects,
)
to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction l
Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
i 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings. CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Elect ric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(3)
NRC Form 3, NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES, Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Part 20); Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers; Inspections (Part 19); Employee Protection 12
i 7/14/82 FEDERAL REGISTER Notice, Vol. 47, No.135, pages 30453 through 30459:
Protection of Employees Who Provide Information, Final Rule, which states, in part (page 30453):
"The [ Nuclear Regulatory] Commission, to i
?
effectively fulfill its mandate, requires complete, factual, and current information concerning the regulated activities of its licensees.
Employees are an important sorrce of such information and should be encouraged to come forth with any items of potential significance to safety without fear of retribution from their employers. The purpose of the final rule is to ensure that employees are aware that employment discrimination for engaging in a protected activity, for example, contacting the Commission, is illegal and that a remedy exists through the Department of Labor. The organizations subject to the rules should understand that the Commission will not permit any interference with j
communications between the Commission's representatives and employees of such organization.
In addition to redress being available to the individual employee, the Commission may, upon learning of an adverse finding against an employer by the Department of Labor, take enforcement action against the employer because the employer engaged in illegal discrimination."
]
In his 7/29/82 testimony, CASE witness Mark Walsh stated that Applicants were using memos stating that they were not to consider LOCA in computer analyses done by Mr. Walsh's group
[rather than using nonconformance reports, NCR's] (Transcript pages 3169/18-3170/20; 3175/17-24).
During his deposition on 8/21/82, Applicants' witness Peter Chang (who at that time was Chief Engineer, Pipe Support-Engineering, reporting to John Finneran) stated that he did not know where the blank NCR's were kept at Comanche Peak, that neither he nor any member of his group had ever turned in an NCR, nor had anyone in the large bore group to his knowledge (see Chang Deposition of 8/21/82, CASE Exhibit 677 which is not in evidence in the operating license proceedings but of which applicable portions are attached as CASE Attachment E hereto; see especially:
page 12, lines 1 through 8; page 38, line 16, through page 39, line 11).
13
As part of the September 13 through 17, 1982, operating license hearing, in the deposition / testimony of CASE witness Jack Doyle, he discussed the reason that he had not written any NCRs:
they were in the office of Brown & Root's site manager and, as Mr. Doyle stated (CASE Exhibit 669, admitted at Tr. 3690, pages 74 and 75):
"...I figured if I'd go in there and I'd say, can I have an NCR, the first thing he's going to do is go talk to my boss and say, he wants an NCR. And the next thing you know, we're overcrowded with people.
We've got 600 resumes of more qualified people; therefore, good afternoon.
So I stayed away from Frankhum's of fice...I didn' t want to find out anything at that point....My guess would be that it did [have a similar effect on other employees in regards to writing NCR's)... Mark [Walsh] wanted to write one, and he backed off..."
i Construction Appraisal Inspection 50-445/83-18, 50-446/83-12, under cover letter dated 4/11/83, for inspection conducted l
1/24/83-2/4/83 and 2/14/83-3/3/83 (hereinafter referred to as the CAT Report), NRC Staff Exhibit 206, bound in at back of volume following Tr. 6286, accepted into evidence at Tr.
7726; especially the following:
Excerpted from page VII-4:
. During discussions with inspectors it was revealed that in one section of the inspection organization threats and intimidations had been made.
. An inspector from a different inspection i
J area reported previous threats, which resulted in the craft person making the threats being removed from the project.
Inspectors from one section reported that they were informed not to prepare nonconformance reports. This instruction was issued by memorandum and is discussed in Section III and Section IX of this report."
Excerpted from page IX-9 and IX-10:
"As discussed in Sections II, III, and IX of this report, overall findings indicate numerous 1
instances in the electrical and mechanical areas where nonconformances were identified. However, various methods (e.g., punchlists, inspection reports, verbal, and other informal methods) were 14 l
a l
used to address and resolve these nonconformances, providing no collective evidence of appropriate corrective action and/or justification.
Additionally, the NRC CAT inspectors discovered that the Mechanical / Civil QA/QC Supervisor directed his supervisors to document nonconforming conditions on an unsatisfactory Inspection Report (IR) only, contrary to the licensee's FSAR commitments and QA program requirements."
9/23/83 Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues) especially pages J
13 through 20 which state, in part (footnotes omitted):
1
"... We are not entirely sure what Mr. Hamilton meant when he denied that his supervisor was trying to ' intimidate' him.
From the entire context, we suspect that he was denying that there was any attempt to physically coerce him. We attach l
greater importance to the unrebutted testimony that the supervisor called a meeting in which he urged i
the inspectors to stop ' nit picking.'
Since this admonition was not qualified in any way, either by the use of specific examples or by an exhortation j
to continue doing the job conscientiously, we interpret the record as establishing a willingness of a supervisor to have quality assurance j
inspectors do a less thorough job of reporting deficiencies. This is troubling, particularly in i
light of the parallel finding we have accepted concerning Mr. Atchison. We will consider its implications in a later decision.
i "We do not interpret Mr. Hamilton's testimony as j
implying that all of the paint inspectors performed precisely the same after the ' nit picking' remark as they had done before.
Mr. Hamilton never said that was the case. We believe his testimony about his own conduct amounts to a statement that he has the courage to withstand management suggestions even when pressured.
Since he does not appear to have accompanied the other inspectors on each of their rounds, we do not find it surprising that he could not give specific examples of failure to perform inspections properly. However, we do not think that every individual is as likely to be self-motivated and courageous as Mr. Hamilton appears to be; and we suspect that the remark about
' nit picking' had its intended effect.
15
)
. Mr. Hamilton described incidents in which he alleged there had been harassment of quality assurance inspectors by the paint craft. Applicant would have us conclude that these were ' isolated pranks'.
1 "Our review of the record discloses the following incidents, which we consider more serious than
' pranks' when performed by adults working on a nuclear plant:
trapping Joe Krolak to fall over a bench, seriously burning John Moon with a rag dipped in paint thinner.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that applicant ever conducted a
]
serious self-initiated investigation of these incidents."
10/25/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order of September 23, 1983) especially pages 4 through 9 which state, in part (footnotes omitted):
At page 7:
"... we consider that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Hamilton's aggressive concern for quality assurance was part of the reason he was discharged."
At page 9:
. we conclude that Mr. Hamilton thought that such an NCR (nonconformance report] would not have been welcome."
11/9/83 CASE's (1) Partial Answer to Board's 10/25/83 Memorandum (Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance); (2)
Motion for Additional Hearings; and (3) Motion for Protective Orders, attaching William Dunham's affidavit discussing harassment, intimidation and threatening of him and his subordinate protective coatings QC inspectors by both Brown 6 j
Root and TUGC0 upper management at Comanche, and also attaching the Lipinsky Memorandum.
Mr. Dunham stated in his affidavit, in part (page 7):
. when you have OC inspectors intimidated and harassed and threatened, what you have in effect is a plant that's been built without inspection.
If l
inspections are compromised, you have no quality I
control at all."
16 l
i 11/28/83 CASE's Answer to Board's 10/'.5/83 Memorandum (Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance), (Charles Atchison,
]
Bob Bronson, Jack Doyle, Robert Hamilton, Freddy R. Harrell, Joseph Krolak, Robert Messerly, Stan Miles, Howard J.
4 Robinson, Lester L. Smith, Darlene Stiner, Henry Stiner, Mark
{
Walsh) i l
i 11/28/83 CASE's Summary of the Record Regarding Intimidation,
)
etc., and Discouragement (Charles Atchison, Jack Doyle, John Gates, Cordella Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, Stanley Miles, Henry Stiner, Darlene Stiner, Bob Bronson, Michael Chandler, Dennis Culton, James Yost) l 1
{
11/18/83 letter from Applicants' Counsel Mr. Horin to Board,
)
l re: Index of Allegations Regarding Intimidation l
11/29/83 letter from NRC Staff Counsel Mr. Mizuno to Board, I
l attaching NRC Staff Summary of Record Evidence on Intimidation of QC Inspectors and Craftspersons at CPSES l
l 1/3/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Additional Scheduling Order), especially pages 1, 2, and 6, which state, in part (footnote omitted):
l
. Issues that have already been decided, such as the reason for firing Mr. Robert Hamilton.
are not subject to relitigation, either by Applicants or by CASE without a prior decision of this Board.
. To the extent that intimidation of inspectors may be isolated events, the inspection of plant quality may be sufficient to assure us of plant safety.
If, however, the intimidation may be shown to be sufficiently serious, then it may reflect on the quality of plant management.
Furthermore, serious intimidation could result in hidden plant conditions that are not readily inspected on walkdowns. Either of these possible conclusions concerning intimidation allegations would have serious adverse implications for licensing."
4/24/84 letter f rom NRC Staf f's Mr. Eisenhut to Applicants' Mr. Spence, under subject:
Comanche peak Steam Electric 17
Station Units 1 and 2 Allegations; see especially page 3, item 24.
8/22/84 FEDERAL REGISTER Notice (Evidentiary Hearing September 20-25, 1984) re: allegations that quality control and quality assurance workers have been intimidated and harassed and that applicants consequently have not complied with regulations governing quality assurance for nuclear I
plants.
9/4/84 CASE's Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact on the Issue of Harassment and Intimidation 9/4/84 Applicants' Prehearing Proposed Findings of Fact
)
Concerning Allegations of Harassment, Intimidation and l
l Threats of Quality Control Inspectors at the Comanche Peak
]
Steam Electric Station j
l 1
10/4/84 Board Memorandum (Testimony of 0. B. Cannon Witnesses), especially beginning bottom of page 1 continued top of page 2 11/16/84 Board Memorandum (Lipinsky Privileges), including pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 16, and 17 11/27/84 letter from NRC Staff's counsel to Board (In Docket Nos. 50-445/2 and 50-446/2), and attachments (Affidavit of Vincent S. Noonan, 8/8/83 Lipinsky Memo, 10/18/83 OI Report No. 04-83-026 and its 2/7/84 supplement).
Testimony in 1982 hearings, and in 1984 and 1985 Harassment and Intimidation hearings (Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2) l Fines, Enforcement Actions, etc., related responses by Applicants, and related documents, affidavits, testimony, etc.
2/6/86 letter from NRC Region IV to Applicants, attaching Inspection Report 50-445/85-12, 50-446/85-08, covering period i
August 26-29, 1985, regarding TUEC programs established to l
l identify and investigate safety concerns of workers at the Comanche Peak plant site, including Applicants' policies, procedures, and implementation relating to the Comanche Peak 18
site Ombudsman and SAFETEAM programs (identified some areas for improvement of SAFETEAM program).
1 11/4/85 NRC Staff to Applicants, attaching Report of Comanche l
Peak Intimidation Par.el Transcript of 12/18/85 TUGC0 Meeting with NRC, CPRT Monthly i
Status (released under cover letter dated Jan. 13, 1986),
pages 4 through 11, especially pages 9 and 10 (engineering i
supervisor put undue pressure on his engineers, gave them a
]
quota of a number of inspections to do per day, harassed and intimidated them, Unit 1 cable tray effort quality suffered and quality as-built program suffered, led to engineering supervisor being removed f rom site) 11/13/86 Memorandum from NRC Staff to Licensing Board under subject:
Comanche Peak 01 Document - Assist in Review of I
TUGC0 Investigation (Case No. A4-86-003) (Board Notification 86-22) -- a review by 01 of a TUGC0 corporate security investigation of allegations of harassment and intimidation against wai'cdown engineers for the Unit 1 cable tray hanger 1
as-built walkdcwn group; and attachments l
NRC Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/86-31, 50-446/86-25, under cover letter of June 1, 1987, during period November 1 through December 31, 1986, Appendix C, 5.b.(4), pages 28 l
through 34, which state in part (excerpted from pages 28, 31, 32, and 33):
. It was alleged that TNE drawing revisions incorporating outstanding changes were not I
adequately controlled or implemented; for example:
l
... (4) the supervisor of the group reviewing changes to drawings was discouraging use of NCRs when inconsistencies were suspected to exist I
between hardware installation and drawing configuration. The time frame of this allegation was August 1986.
. it was determined that the above four examples were related to the safety-related instrumentation and control (I&C) systems.
. (4) A Gibbs & Hill (G&H) group supervisor in charge of reviewing the incorporation of outstanding design changes into revised drawings was discouraging the writing of NCRs by reviewing 19
l personnel.
The supervisor was requesting that any suspected inconsistencies between the physical installation and the design drawing be identified to engineering (TNE) via 3 part memorandum for further action.
. Suspected inconsistencies between the as-built condition and the design drawings were recalled by some individuals during these reviews.
When this occured, these individuals were advised by their supervisor that their responsibility was to verify outstanding design change incorporation l
and not generate NCRs against suspected l
inconsistencies. The supervisor suggested that suspected inconsistencies be transmitted to engineering on a 3 part memorandur for follow-up.
. In summary, four concerns were cited as examples of the lack of adequate I&C design control and implementation.
Of the four concerns, all were substantiated.
. The concern that a G&H supervisor for the group reviewing changes to I&C drawings and discouraging the use of NCRs when inconsistencies were suspected to exist between hardware installation and drawing configuration was apparently accurate."
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings.
CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the l
matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
20 l.
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon. CASE does, howcVer, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further l
proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA l
proceedings.
1.d)(4)
Construction Appraisal Inspection 50-445/83-18, 50-446/83-12, under cover letter dated 4/11/83, for inspection conducted 1/24/83-2/4/83 and 2/14/83-3/3/83 (hereinafter referred to as the CAT Report), NRC Staff Exhibit 206, bound in at back of volume following Tr. 6286, accepted into evidence at Tr.
7726; especially the following, excerpted from pages A-2, A-3, B-2, and IV-8:
Pages A-2 and A-3:
"... The HVAC welding activities reveal significant deficiencies. Problems were identified with... inadequately trained inspection personnel.
"... Interviews and certification reviews revealed that some inspectors have been certified without the required combination of education and experience specified by ANSI N45.2.6, 1978.
Interviews and document reviews revealed that individuals not certified as Level II were evaluating the validity and acceptability of final inspections contrary to the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 as committed in the FSAR.
Page B-2:
" Quality Control Inspector Effectiveness "1.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II and FSAR Section 3.8, individuals were certified to levels of capability without the requisite experience described in Regulatory I
Guide 1.58 (Section VII.B.2.a.(2)).
1 "2.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X and FSAR Section 3.8, inspection records were 21
f prepared and accepted by L-I inspectors as the
' inspector of record' rather than the required L-II ' inspector of record' required by ANSI N45.2.6 (Section VII.B.2.b(1)).
Page IV-8:
"HVAC QC inspector qualifications, both past and Little evidence was present, were reviewed.
available that reflected technical training of substance.
i "The OC inspectors informed the NRC CAT inspectors that up to 1 year ago BSC [Bahnson Service Co.]
inspectors were not using fillet gauges, or other similar tools for measuring weld sizes.
Furthermore, during the NRC review some inspectors exhibited limited knowledge of welding inspection.
I QC inspector qualification records appear to meet the letter of the ANSI requirement but it was apoarent that the QC inspectors lacked proficiency in the inspection of welds."
[i 7/29/81 Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions), at page 22, which states (first sentence of third full paragraph, footnote omitted):
"Mr. Hamilton also alleged that his quality assurance supervision was not qualified."
11/28/83 CASE's Answer to Board's 10/25/83 Memorandum (Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance) and attached affidavits.
12/28/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), LBP-83-31 18 NRC 1410 et seq., pages 27, 28, 30, 32,,
37, 40, 62, and 65.
10/1/84 Memorandum (Concerns About Start-up Quality Assurance), especially at page 4:
"(5) Defective test procedures were not detected during the first administration of those procedures in a test situation. Additionally, neither of the responsible Systems Test Engineers (STE's) detected, prior to testing, that the wiring diagram 22
for the inverter annunciator system would not detect an overload.
Since STE's are responsible for the adequacy of the procedures they administer-and for being able to review the procedures in light of the wiring diagrams, these failures call STE qualifications into question.
2/21/85 Draft Teledyne Preliminary Consulting Report on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station -- Piping and Support Design (bound in following page 5 of the 2/26/85 Meeting between TU and NRC re: CPSES Piping and Support Design),
entire report, including especially page 21, last sentence of first full paragraph, and last paragraph at bottom of page 21 through end of page 22.
May 1985, SSER No.11 (NUREG-0797), Safety Evaluation Report j
related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, by U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, especially at pages 0.10 and 0.11 (section 3.2.4), which state, in part:
"... The OA/0C Group found numerous deficiencies in the site inspector qualification and certification program.
"There also were numerous problems in the non-ASME (TUEC) inspector certification testing... The TRT also found that there were five craft personnel who transferred into OC inspection that had no prior background or experience in inspection, and also were found to have questionable qualifications. These problems amount to a pattern of activities indicating inadequate controls to ensure correct application of a OC training and que.lification program, i.e.,
to assure that the program achieves, implements, and maintains requirements as set forth by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
"Although on paper the ASME (B&R) personnel training and certification program, as established by TUEC and B&R procedures, met the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6, and Regulatory Guide 1.58, in practice these guidelines were not followed.
Instead, the program, in practice, followed the
' exception to the rule' and used 'other factors' as the normal method of qualification.
Of the 102 inspector records sampled, more than 80 percent of 23 l
the inspectors were qualified under the ' exception to the rule' factor.
"... the OA/0C Group also notes that over 80 percent of all site line OC inspectors were qualified to the secondary ' exception to the rule' clause; and then to make matters more serious, this secondary program had many deficiencies and excesses (previously noted) that further demeaned the credibility of the qualifications.
"The TRT [NRC's Technical Review Team) 0A/0C Group concludes that the weak OC qualification program may have resulted in the non-detection of or failure to report the hardware deficiencies.
The OA/0C Group concludes that the widespread deficiencies and minimal requirements in the OC Inspector qualification program have potential quality and generic implications.
Inspection Report 50-445/85-13, 50-446/85-09, covering period August 23, through September 30, 1985, Item D (445/8313-V-01), and related documents 10/2/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification), especially page 4.
5/28/87 letter from Christopher 1. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings j
and related proceedings).
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings. CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in, Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
24 i
I I
l We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon. CASE does, however, considor some of the I
testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance
)
to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' l
failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(5)
Transcript of 8/18/86 Prehearing Conference; see generally Tr. pages 24493 through 24502, especially page 24498.
Applicants' Supplementation to Their Answers to CASE's Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985), for instance those dated 1/21/87, 3/20/87, and 5/21/87, answer to interrogatory A-3.
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a f ormer engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
Applicants' 6/8/87 Supplemental Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents, supplementary response to interrogatory number 32, attaching information requested regarding names, etc., of former employees of Gibbs
& Hill, ITT Grinnell, NPSI, and Texas Utilities who were rehired by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (see i
reference above to 8/18/86 transcript).
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related I
proceedings. CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan l
(hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the l
matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
l 25
9 Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon. CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(6)
Texas Utilities Company Stockholders meeting notices, annual reports, quarterly reports to shareholders, etc.
Newspaper clippings confirming promotions of some individuals.
See also answers 1.d)(4) and 1.d)(5) preceding.
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings.
CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the 26 1
i testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' f ailure to do so (and, indeed, the very f act of Applicants' f ailure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by_ CASE to be further l
proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA l
proceedings.
1.d)(7) 10/25/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order l
of September 23, 1983) (OL), page 9, next-to-last paragraph.
l 12/28/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design) (OL), especially pages 71 and 72, which state, in part (footnote omitted):
"It may well be that the absence of proof that would satisfy this Board was a consequence of litigation strategy that relied on applicant's ability to persuade this Board to accept the testimony of applicant and staff witnesses because
]
of their more impressive credentials.
In i
describing the kind of Proposed Findings we required of the parties, we attempted to stress the need for logical explanations that covered all the material in our record and that explained why we should reach the conclusion sought by the party.
In this instance, CASE heeded our advice better than applicant and staff and we therefore had no choice but to decide these issues as we have.
"In assessing the next step in this proceeding, we urge applicant to abandon its belief that its difficulties with this Board are related to the lack of continuity of Board members.
If applicant were to persist in that belief, it likely would find this Board unreceptive to its reargument of old grounds. We have studied the record in this case and believe that applicant must realize that its principal difficulty has been its inability to submit rigorous, logical answers to opposing proof."
2/8/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design) (OL), much of entire Order, including specifically:
page 5, first full paragraph, 27
through end of first paragraph, top of page 6; page 7, second paragraph; page 32, last paragraph, continued through first full paragraph on page 33; page 34, first quoted paragraph (quoting CASE).
10/29/84 Board Memorandum (In-Process Weld Repair Hold Point)
(OL), page 1, first paragraph, which states:
" Applicants' Response to Board Request for Additional Information Regarding Weave Welding, October 25, 1984, refuses to respond to the Board question in full and exposes Applicants to a possible adverse finding unless this lack of responsiveness is promptly remedied by Applicants or is adequately addressed by Staff."
10/31/84 Board Memorandum (Multiple Filings) (OL), page 2, which Jtates, in part:
. we have now obtained and read the transcripts of the August 8, 9 and 23 meetings between Staff and Applicants. Our understanding of these meetings leaves us without any rational explanation of how Applicants could have come to assure this Board that there were no significant matters raised in those meetings. We trust that Applicants understand the importance of the matters raised by the Staff and the apparent need to supplement their Summary Disposition motions in a clear, responsive fashion.
Supplementation appears to be necessary to avoid denial of the filed motions.
"Under the circumstances, we should not have j
required CASE to respond to summary disposition 1
motions with respect to which the Staff has serious doubts. We required CASE to do so based on Applicants' representations that significant matters were not involved. Hence, we unnecessarily subjected CASE to a time deadline and to the likely J
need to make multiple filings. We will consider this burden in subsequent rulings on time deadlines.
Furthermore, we will automatically permit CASE to make fourth-and higher-round responses with respect to any pending motions which CASE believes were significantly questioned by Staff at these meetings.
28
i
\\
~
11/7/84 Board Memorandum (Rejection of Misleading Filing)
(OL), which states (page 1):
"Because of the omission of important facts relating to a conversation between Mr. Bruce Downey and the Board Chairman on November 2,1984, Applicants' Request for Extension of Filing l
Deadline is rejected as misleading.
A substitute motion may be filed."
11/7/84 Board Memorandum (Request for Sanctions) (OL), page 1, first two paragraphs.
11/9/84 Board Memorandum (Testimony from Dr. Arthur P.
Boresi) (OL), entire order (which is only one page).
11/16/84 Board Memorandum (Lipinsky Privileges) (OL), most of the entire Memorandum.
)
11/19/84 Board Memorandum (Challenge to CASE's Summary Disposition Motion) (OL), entire Memorandum, including the following from botton of page l' continued top of page 2:
"... Applicants then conclude that the sole method for litigating their (1984] plan should be through the summary disposition motions they have filed..."
12/18/84 Board Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement) (0L), entire Memorandum 5/24/85 Board Memorandum (Case Management Plan) (OL),
including but not limited to:
page 1, first paragraph, through paragraph at top of page 2.
{
5/30/85 Board Memorandum (Cla>ification of LBP 85-16) (OL),
which states, in part (page e.ne; Memorandum is only one page):
"... Applicants should respond to discovery requests that are likely to survive regardless of what the Staff does.
29
^
4 i
8/29/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Proposal for Governance of this Case) (OL), including but not limited to:
Page 5, item 7 (begun on page 4):
l i
"For the purpose of providing guidance to the j
parties, we have reached the following tentative, preliminary and non-binding conclusions:
"6.
We will await the CPRT's consideration of the summary disposition questions raised by Applicants and by CASE, notwithstanding Applicants request that we no longer consider entering summary disposition in their favor on the basis of these motions.
"7.
The CPRT should address the extent to which there have been design errors or insufficiently complete design documents at Comanche Peak and it should consider the root cause of these errors.
Consideration should be given to whether Applicants incorrectly defended design errors or incomplete design documents before this Board."
Pages 6 and 7:
'I Some other questions that concern us are:
"o Whether Applicants consistently complied with their FSAR design commitments.
"o Whether the samples are properly structured.
l i
"o How the CPRT will address management's responsibility for (a) apparent OA/QC 1
management failures with respect to coatings 1
and to the liner plate, (b) failure to disclose onoe or more management studies to CASE pursuant to discovery requests, (c) possible inadequacies in the technical 4
k analyses contained in Applicants' filings in this case, including its summary disposition 3
filings, (d) the implications of the I
' destructive inspection' and the transfer of a
workers as they relate to the t-shirt l
incident, (e) Applicants' conduct with respect j
to Mr. Lipinski and to witness F, both of whom j
appear to have made at least some charges of 1
technical validity, (f) the handling of l
30 l
____----__------.---___.____--_---_.--------a_
i Atcheson (sic), Hamilton and Dunham, (g) the handling of other allegations of intimidation i
of QA/QC and craft personnel, (h) the attempt to defend the quality of QA/QC for coatings and for the liner plate, (i) the apparent i
inability to understand and properly evaluate l
the engineering contentions of Mark Walsh and Jack Doyle, including the apparently erroneous argument that Applicants' engineering practices were standard industry practice, and (j) other problems of documentation and workmanship..
"o The acceptability of CPRT work done before a QA/QC plan was approved or implemented....
"o How the CPRT wiull discharge its responsibility to find root causes and patterns of deficiencies.
"o The suitability of acceptance criteria and the way in which trends will be used to establish corrective action.
"o information concerning the independent design review conducted by a professor.
9/17/85 Board Memorandum (Cygna Review of Revised Designs)
(OL), entire Memorandum, which states, in part:
. Cygna apparently will not verify aspects of design that were within the scope of its review, were found to have weaknesses and have been subsequently corrected.
j "Cygna's exclusion from this last stage of design review will not provide the scape of independent review that was contemplated and will therefore 5
decrease the credibility of independent testimony l
about the adequacy of the finished design.
l
)
10/2/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification) (0L), especially but not limited to page 4.
j k
l 11/8/85 Board temorandum (Withdrawal of Written Filings Motion) (OL), entire Memorandum.
31
9 11/25/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum) (OL), entire Memorandum.
12/23/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery) (OL),
especially pages 3 and 4, " Request 11."
2/4/86 Board Memorandum and Order (CASE's January 1986 Motions to Compel and Clarify) (OL), especially page 3, Footnote 2, second paragraph.
6/6/86 Board Memorandum (Definition of "Reot Cause") (OL),
entire Memorandum.
8/8/86 Board Memot'andum (Assiscance to Board) (OL), entire Memorandum.
9/9/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's Continuing Role) (OL), entire Order.
11/19/86 Board Memorandum (December 3 Discovery Conference)
(OL), most of Memorandum, including but not limited to:
. the current issue for litigation is whether or not the CPRT program plan is adequate. We consider it important, as part of this issue, to ascertain the meaning of the plan as it currently exists..
"... The purpose of discovery is to give both sides access to the truth. The issues are too important to be considered merely a game of hide-and-seek."
11/28/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery of Tex-La Documents) (OL), especially second full paragraph on page 3, which states:
"For purposes of this litigation, Applicants are one_ party. Their intramural squabbles may not be l
asserted as a reason to deprive interveners of l
information relevant to the preparation of their l
case. Once the information exists, we do not consider it relevant to inquire whether it exists because of problems existing within Applicants' 32
J team. They are collectively responsible for 1
meeting their discovery obligation."
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Of fice of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies.
The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that j
5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (aee listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings. CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information f rom the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan l
(hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, l
Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
j Respondents).
I We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the i
construction permit proceedings that Applicants should J
voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' i
failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further i
proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA I
proceedings.
1 I
1.d)(7)
(a) For example, Applicants have not yet responded further to those Interrogatories from CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12th Set on Sampling, although the Licensing Board specifically ordered them to do so in its 3/16/87 Memorandum and Order (Motion to Compel:
CASE's Set 12).
As CASE's Mrs. Ellis stated to Applicants' Mr. Eggeling on 6/29/87, CASE will be engaging in further discussions with Applicants regarding Applicants' response to CASE's First through Fifth Sets re: Credibility (and 33
l specifically responding to Mr. Gad's 6/19/87 answer to
{
the 5/8/87 letter from Mrs. Ellis) after completion of j
this filing and after CASE has had sufficient time to research the matters discussed in Mr. Gad's 6/19/87 l
letter. The matters raised in CASE's five Sets include information which CASE believes is necessary in order I
that CASE might more fully answer Applicants' interrogatories which are the subject of Applicants' CPA discovery interrogatories (Set 1987-1).
We will also be continuing our discussions with Applicants regarding other discovery requests which have been under discussion for some time and regarding which, by mutual agreement between CASE and Applicants, motions l
to compel which CASE might file have been postponed.
1.d)(7)
(b) Applicants' Appeal of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding 1ssues) (OL); and related other filings Applicants' 10/21/85 Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board Order of 10/2/85 (OL); and related other filings Applicants' 11/4/85 Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board Order of October 31, 1985 (OL); and related other filings l
Permittees' 11/10/86 Appeal from Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Entered 10/31/86 (CPA); and related other filings 1
1.d)(7)
(c) Applicants' 10/21/85 Petition for Directed Certification of Licensing Board Order of 10/2/85 (OL); and related I
other filings i
1.d)(7)
(d) Applicants' various "get well" Plans and related filings not yet specifically identified or decided upon.
l 5/12/87 letter from NRC's C. I. Grimes to W. G. Counsil requesting additional information in conjunction with Program Plan Update; and related filings 1.d)(7)
(e) All documents confirming that Applicants have not 34 l
L-
promptly reported under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e), including but not limited to NRC Inspection Reports.
One recent document of which CASE is aware is the 6/15/87 NRC Staff's Fifth Progress Report and Annotated Bibliography where the Staff states, in part (pages 4 and 5, item 5):
"NRC inspector identified the following...
major concerns:
"a.
By letter dated September 5, 1986, Brown Boveri, supplier of the Class 1E 6.9 kv circuit breakers, notified the Applicants that a seismic event could cause malfunction of the breakers because of the excessive slope of the concrete floor.
On November 27, 1985, the Applicants issued a nonconformance report for the excessive slope.
NRC observed the repair work on February 13, 1987, the same day the Applicants inade notification l
per 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e). Results are documented in Inspection Reports 50-445/8703, 50-446/8703; and 50-445/8607, 50446/8706. The failure to report this deficiency to the NRC earlier is being pursued.
"b.
The NRC inspectors have questioned the timeliness of the Applicants' determination of deportability under 10 l
C.F.R. 50.55(e) for all nonconforming conditions. The NRC Resident Inspectors have expressed this concern to the Applicants.
i More details regarding the preceding and another recent example are contained in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/87-07, 50-446/87-06 (under cover letter of 6/25/87 from Mr. C. I. Grimes, NRC Director of Comanche Peak Project Division, to Applicants' Mr. W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President of TU Electric). This report, which covers the construction inspection during the period March 1 through April 30, 1987, states, in part:
Page 1 of cover letter:
35 j
i l
"During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements.
These apparent violations are being reviewed for potential escalated enforcement action."
Page 2 of Report:
"Results: Within the 3 areas inspected, 2 potential violations were identified - failure to make timely notification to the NRC of a deficiency reportable under 50.55(e)
(paragraph 2.m) and failure to establish
]
adequate measures to require the documentation J
of all nonconforming conditions (Unit 1
)
only)(paragraph 2.n).
These apparent violations are being considered for escalated enforcement action."
Excerpted from pages 6, 7, and 9 of Report:
"m.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (445/8703-U-01; 446/8703-U-01):
6.9kv Switchgear Deportability.
During Inspection 445/87-03; 446/87-03, the NRC inspector identified unresolved item 445/8703-U-01 and 446/8703-U-01.
In the Brown-Boveri letter of September 5, 1987 (sic) to Texas Utilities Generating Company, the switchgear vendor states,
...that in many cases the metal switchgear floors are unsupported by the concrete floors, which is a critical shortcoming of the installation.'
Brown-Boveri noted that due to the breaker weight of approximately a half ton, the floor of the swtichgcar has taken a downward set.
They note that the condition
'...is serious, not on17 from a seismic view, but from an electrical standpoint.'
They further note that because of the floor distortion, there may be inadequate electrical contact from the breaker to bus and ' Seismically, the unsupported floors will act like a trampoline causing the breaker to rock and bounce around in the compartment, perhaps destroying the switchgear....'
"In a second letter, dated January 14, 1987, Brown-Boveri recommended 36
1
... correcting the original defect, in i
this case, correct the floor which caused I
the problem in the first place.'
I "The applicant has remedied the deficient condition by determinating the cabling and removing the switchgear. After removal, the concrete floor and the mounting embedments were leveled and the switchgear repositioned and realigned.
The cabling has been reterminated and the q
switchgear will be tested.
i "No additional information was provided by the applicant regarding the delay in i
reporting. The NRC inspector concluded that ;
was sufficient information available in the letter from Brown-Boveri, dated September 5, 1986, to have j
notified the NRC per the provisions of 10 i
CFR 50.55(e). However, the notification j
was not made until February 13, 1987.
)
This is considered to be a violation of 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) which requires that notification shall be made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The unresolved item (445/8703-U-j 01; 446/8703-U-01 is closed having been resolved by violation 445/8707-V-01; 446/8706-V-01.
"n.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (445/8703-U-02; 446/8703-U-02):
Nonconformance Reporting Program. The NRC inspector concluded the review of the applicants nonconformance reporting program and procedures began in inspection reports 445/8703; 446/8703 and identified as unresolved items.
Inspection criteria utilized were Criterion XV of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and the applicants approved Quality Assurance Plan.
"The conclusion reached by the NRC inspector is that the nonconformance i
program and procedures are inadequate to implement Criterion XV of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50; and the applicants 00C/0AP Section 3.9, paragraph 4.
This program inadequacy is considered a violation of Criterion XV of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 (445/8707-V-02)."
37
See also 1.d)(7)(e) preceding and 1.d)(8) following.
1.2)(7)
(f) See 1.d)(7)(e) preceding and 1.d)(9) following.
1.d)(8)
See practically the entire record of the operating license proceedings wherever Applicants have testified, made representations, taken positions, etc.
I 7/29/83 Board Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions) (OL), especially pages:
18 (last paragraph) and
-)
19 (first paragraph); and last paragraph on 46, continued top of 47, 4
2/6/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Site-Visit Discovery)
(OL), especially page 3, which states, in part:
"In the past, Applicant has alleged that construction deficiencies would be corrected.
- Now, enough time has elapsed for a reasonably prompt quality assurance program to have corrected the deficiencies, so that deficiencies observed at this time are unlikely to be excusable - particularly if they are not at this time reflected in non-conformance or other adequate deficiency reports."
2/8/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design) (OL), including but not limited I
to the following pages (footnote omitted):
Page 5, which states, in part:
"Our conclusion that Applicant has not interpreted Appendix B, Criterion XVI, correctly in ghis proceeding also is related to the general conduct of the case.
CASE has attempted to show deficiencies in particular design documents.
Instead of demonstrating the existence of a system to identify and correct deficiencies, Applicant chose to show that:
"'the designs raised by (CASE's]
witnesses were taken from the initial stages of a carefully designed and comprehensive 38 l
iterative design process and thus do not (nor 1
were they intended to) reflect the quality of the final pipe support designs at Comanche Peak.'
"We do not consider this to be isolated language.
It represents Applicant's litigation approach, in which the Staff concurred. There has been no recognition that errors in design documents are an independent concern, regardless of whether they may be corrected before the plant is completed."
Page 29, which states, in part:
" Applicant correctly perceives that our problem i
i with generic stiffness values is not with the study submitted to justify those values but with Applicant's initial justification.
In this instance, the SIT Team made an adverse finding and Applicant never explained why its design had the alleged deficiency.
This apparently was part of the Applicant's and Staff's approach, which was to show that deficiencies had no consequence but not to address how deficiencies had arisen or whether they were adequately addressed by quality assurance."
l 11/8/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Withdrawal of Written Filings Motion) (OL), especially the following pages, which state, in part:
Page 1:
"The written filings stipulation was the result of a telephone conference conducted on May 24, 1985.
The impetus for the stipulation was the Applicants' reliance on summary disposition motions for the purpose of disposing of complex technical matters that had initially been decided adversely to Applicants' postion. The idea for the stipulation was suggested by the Board."
Page 3:
. Applicants' problem is that they now consider their filings not to be an adequate basis on which to stand at this time. Extensive studies are underway by the design review group of the Comanche Peak Review Team, and findings about design issues could affect the Applicants motions, 39 1
as well as the other Walsh-Doyle matters covered by our December 1983 Order and not yet responded to by Applicants...."
Page 4 (footnote omitted):
[h "What we believe would serve both justice and the Applicants better, would be for us to suspend consideration of the written filing motions at the time (awaiting filings on the merits f com present both Applicants and Staff) and to permit Applicants to supplement or entirely supersede their filings when they have completed the necessary studies.
(As we understand Applicants' Plan in relation to the stipulation, we expect that eventually they will make written filings on_all the Walsh-Doyle issues; if our understanding is incorrect we expect Applicants to correct our impression with a brief covering this point.)"
(Emphasis in the original.)
11/25/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum) (OL), entire Order.
6/6/86 Board Memorandum (Definition of " Root cause") (OL),
entire Memorandum.
6/12/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling of Hearings)
(OL), especially bottom of page 1 continued top of page 2 which states:
"The competing considerations are speed and fairness Speed would seem to dictate prompt litigation of each results report as it is completed.
Fairness, however, dictates that CASE not be deprived of the right control the presentation of its own case in its own way.
to A reason fairness lies so clearly on CASE's side is that it has already twice prevailed in this proceeding It prevailed in December 1983 when we found that the Applicants had not sustained the burden of proof with respect to the safety of design of their plant.
It prevailed again when Applicants decided to withdraw all of their filings made pursuant to their approved plan by which they were attempting to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Board's findings about design.
At this point, procedural fairness requires that the side that has twice prevailed have the opportunity to suggest a workable schedule that will give it control over the presentation of its case."
40
l 1
1 6/26/86 Board Memorandum (Board Concerns) (OL), entire Memorandum.-
9/2/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Management Issues Under Contention 5; CASE Request of July 2, 1986) (0L), pages 1, 2, and top of page 3.
9/9/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's Continuing Role) (OL), entire Order.
i 10/30/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Motion to Admit New Contentions or for Reconsideration) (CPA), entire Order.
Applicants' 4/27/87 Comments in Response to " Proposed Order Concerning Standardized Computer Filing Formats" at pages 12 and 13 (quoted in answer 1.c)(8) of CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 10).
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Of fice of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M, A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/1/87 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7)
(OL), especially page 5, which states, in part:
"At the present time.
. we are still awaiting Applicants' effort to accurately depict its current program. Applicants themselves do not yet have a final position on which Walsh/Doyle issues they accept as valid."
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings.
CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan 41
1 (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Department of Labor, in the l
i matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering l
Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon. CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the
)
construction permit proceedings that Applicants should I
voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings,' documents, etc.,
i l
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' f ailure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(9)
See answer 1.d)(3) preceding.
See aisc Department of Labor (DOL) and Secretary of Labor (SOL) decisions in the Charles A. Atchison and William A. Dunham cases.
See answers 1.d)(7) and 1.d)(8) preceding.
Atchison Department of Labor case, Charles A. Atchison, complainant, v. Brown & Root, Inc., respondent (Case No. 82-l ERA-9), involving alleged illegal discharge of Charles A.
l Atchison.
1/4/83 Board Memorandum and Order (OL), especially pages 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, which state, in part (footnotes omitted):
"The Intervenor CASE filed a motion on December 14, 1982 to supplement its admitted exhibits by adding... more documents....
Proffered Exhibit 738 is a' copy of a Recommended Decision dated December 3, 1982, filed by an Administrative Law Judge of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in a' matter involving the alleged illegal discharge of Charles A. Atchison, complainant, by Brown and Root, Inc., respondent (Case No. 82-ERA-9)..
. CASE's Exhibit 738 (Recommended Decision of DOL Administrative Law Judge) will be admitted into 42
4 9
evidence and made part of the record in this proceeding..
" Exhibit 738 is a detailed, closely reasoned opinion and proposed order, finding that Mr.
Atchison's wtongful discharge as a quality control (OC) inspector by Brown and Root resulted from his complaints about and reporting of construction i
defects and quality control deficiencies.
l "Some of the exculpatory testimony offered by the respondent's witnesses was found to be
' incredible, false and pretextual'.
It further stated:
"'The weight of this evidence supports a finding that as of his April 12,1982 job removal by Brandt and job termination by Purdy, respondent had no legitimate business reason for his removal and termination, and l
that he was removed by Brandt and terminated by Purdy solely because he filed NCR #296 and NCR #361, protected conduct within the Act's meaning; but for this conduct complainant, as of April 12, 1982, would not have been removed from his non-ASME job in Brandt's group, and terminated by Purdy.
It is further-found these protected activities were the sole bases for Brandt and Purdy's conclusion complainant was unable to perform his assigned tasks, and did not follow supervisory instructions and the motivating basis for Brandt and Purdy's evaluation and administrative response, Brandt to remove and Purdy to fire.
4
"... The Recommended Decision results from an appeal of that determination, and is based upon a full evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
Such decision contains important additional evidence directly connected with testimony already in our record.
In fact, we are surprised that only the Intervenor called this matter to the Board's attention on December 14, 1982 and filed a copy on that date. We have previously admonished both the Applicants and the Staff that they have an affirmative duty to inform the Board promptly of new facts or developments.
This Recommended Decision is a potentially significant matter which Applicants and staff q
should have immediately forwarded to this Board."
j 43
1 l
l l
I 7/6/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Collateral Estoppel; Atchison Case) (0L), which states, in part, (pages 1 and 5, footnotes omitted):
"On June 10, 1983, the Secretary of Labor-(Secretary) issued a Decision and Final Order in Charles A. Atchison v. Brown & Root, Inc. That decision determined that Charles A. Atchison had been discharged from his duties as a Quality l
Control Inspector on the Comanche Peak Steam l
Electric Station project.
The Secretary found that l
Atchison was fired for engaging in a protected activity and that Brown & Root's alleged reasons I
for firing him were pretextual.
The protected I
activities for which Atchison was fired was the filing of non-conformance reports and the reporting of defects outside the area of his responsibility.
"0RDERED:
"That the findings made by the Secretary of the Department of Labor in Charles A. Atchison v.
Brown & Root, Inc., 82-ERA-9 (June 10, 1983) and discussed in the accompanying memorandum are binding in this proceeding by application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel."
7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions) (OL), especially pages 18 and 19, and 46 and 47, which state, in part (footnotes omitted):
Pages 18 and 19:
"Mr. Miles also alleged that there were problems with the polar crane. He alleged that j
there were 3/8 inch gaps between each longitudinal section of the rails on which the polar crane ran.
As the crane was operated, the rails could move, accumulating some of the gaps so that as much as five inches could be found in a single gap.
When the polar crane wheel dropped into this gap, it would stop. However, Mr. Miles also testified that the problem had been corrected by the clips that he personally had installed. These clips were made of a weld-on piece, a bolt-on piece and the bolt itself.
So there is no defect remaining that the Board might declare to be a sua sponte issue."
44
1 l
l I
l l
1 l
l 1
"Also, in connection with the polar crane, Mr.
Miles alleged that, contrary to the design l
documents, ' fingers' were cut off of several shims to make them fit in their designated places.
It appears that this did occur. However, the Board i
does not believe that it is a matter which the l
Board should pursue sua sponte because it appears l
that the staff and the applicant are addressing it.
The staff issued a Notice of Violation in connection with the failure to inspect these shims.
I The applicant has stated that all the shims in the polar crane girder support bracket assemblies will be removed and inspected.
Shims which have clipped
' fingers' will be evaluated by an engineer to determine whether they are acceptable."
Pages 46 and 47:
l "Mr. Atchison's final allegation was that I
minimum wall thickness violations had occurred in piping. He testified that an NCR had been written on this matter and had led to two backfit programs.
As f ar as he knew the NCR had not been closed.
Since an NCR had been written on the problem and there are controls requiring that there be an
{
appropriate disposition, we find that this allegation demonstrates the correct working of the quality assurance program.
9/23/83 Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific l
Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues), especially pages 1
13 through 20 (quoted as part of answer 1.d')(3) preceding),
and page 15 and pages 21 and 22, which state, in part:
Page 15 (footnotes omitted):
"On the other hand, we accept applicant's unrebutted but incomplete evidence that it is conducting a through reinspection program (of protective coatings] whose preliminary findings, as of February 25, 1983, were favorable. However, l
almost half a year has passed and more than preliminary findings should be available.
If written evidence concerning these more complete results, of both the applicant's reinspection program and the staff's ' verification' of changes in applicant's program, confirm the preliminary findings, we will conclude that the ' nit picking' incident had no serious impact on inspector 45 1
1 e
effectiveness."
Pages 21 and 22:
"To the extent that Mr. Hamilton made a separate allegation that any paint that passed the adhesion test would be acceptable, we find applicant's objection--consisting of C. Thomas Brandt's affidavit at 3-4--to be satisfactory.
Mr.
Brandt states that there are visual inspection and other requirements that go beyond mere adhesion testing and we find his testimony on this point to be more credible than Mr. Hamilton's. We believe that Mr. Hamilton, under the pressure of cross-examination, overstated the nature of the quality assurance program in this particular aspect of his testimony."
10/25/83 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order of September 23, 1983), especially page 7 (quoted as part of answer 1.d)(3) preceding), and page 4, which states, in part:
" Applicant also has persuaded us that there is l
ambiguity in NRC Exhibit 206 at V11-4 concerning the extent to which applicant's management (and the affiliated management of Brown & Root) has taken aggressive action to counteract inspector intimidation.
See summary statements in cover letters at beginning of CASE's responses to Applicants' 1984 Motions for Summary Disposition, which provide specific references.
1/12/84 Transcript of Conference Call, Tr. 9234/1-10, where Applicants agreed when Judge Bloch stated:
. Yes, we want all relevant correspondence between the Staff and Applicant on admitted issues."
(For example, although the Board is now receiving NRC Inspection Reports and Notices of Violations or Deviations, CASE does not believe the Board is receiving copies of Applicants' responses to Notices of Violations or Deviations.
We also note that copies of notifications from Applicants to the NRC Staff of items potentially reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e) (SDAR's, Significant Deficiency Analysis Reports) are being sent to the Board not by Applicants, but by CASE.
46
i e
1 l
'It appears to CASE that this is the kind of information in which the Board has clearly expressed its interest, and at a minimum would have been worthy of an inquiry from Applicants to the Board as to whether or not it wants such documents.)
1/30/84 Board Memorandum (Records Retrieval) (OL), entire Memorandum.
1/31/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Continuing obligation to Update Interrogatories) (OL), entire (one page) Order.
2/10/84 Board Memorandum (Brandt Interpretation cf Stiner Testimony), entire (one-page) Memorandum.
10/18/84 Board Memorandum and Order (More Detail on Individual Pipe Supports) (OL), especially pages 1 and 2, where the Licensing Board requested the following:
"For each unstable support, we require the following information:
"o the identification number of the support, "o
the date and CMC number pursuant to which the unstable support was first approved by any engineer or authorized employee of the project, "o
the date the possible instability problem for that sopport was first detected, including all relevant memoranda and deficiency paper that indicate directly or indirectly the awareness and resolution of the problem for that support, "o
the nature of the alleged instability and its j
possible significance, l
1 "o
if applicable, the date and CMC number pursuant to which the design was changed and the l
supporting analyses that demonstrate that the new design is adequate, including stability, local pipe stress, adequacy of the new design feature (s) and possible effects on the pipe run analysis, "o
if construction problems are known to af fect the installation of U-bolts or clearances within box frames, those problems and their resolution should be documented, 47 i
i 1
1 "o
if applicable, if there were stability
)
l problems found in a modified design, provide all the information above again, with respect to the modified design.
" Applicants may group supports with identical problems and indicate clear references to documents i
related to large numbers of supports, providing a complete reference is made to documentation for each support.
" Applicants shall file this information by November 18, 1984...."
10/24/84 Board Memorandum (Raw Data on U-Bolts) (OL), which stated, in part:
I
. the data filed yesterday are not the
' raw data' we requested. We have been provided with a ' Torque-Average (f t-lbs),' which does not permit us to examine the variance of readings on individual bolts. Furthermore, this data does not provide us with any indication of the procedure used to measure torque--in particular, whether it was measured by tightening or by loosening. We really want the raw data.
10/25/84 Board Memorandum (Information on Composition of A36 and A307 Steel) (OL), which states, in part:
"Because of the variability in A36 (A307) i steel, the Licensing Board requires information about the extent to which the items tested by Applicants have been representative of the steels actually employed at the plant.
10/26/84 Board Memorandum (Intent to Retain Academic Expert)
(OL), entire Memorandum.
l 11/7/84 Board Memorandum (Reconsideration:
Cross-Over Leg Restraints) (OL), entire Memorandum.
11/9/84 Board Memorandum (Testimony From Dr. Arthur P.
Boresi) (OL), entire (one-page) Memorandum.
48
l l
l l
l 11/9/84 Board Memorandum (Deficiency Paper:
Jim Cole) (OL),
j entire Memorandum.
11/9/84 Board Memorandum (Official Notice Concerning Pipe Supports) (OL), entire Memorandum.
3 11/16/84 Board Memorandum (Lipinsky Privileges) (OL), entire
]
Memorandum.
12/18/84 Board Memorandum and Order (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement) (OL), entire Memorandum and Order, which states, in part (page 9)*
1 "Under these circumstances, and in light of Applicants' failure to file current information about the completion of construction, CASE and the Staff may undertake additional discovery concerning i
samples, tes. ting or any other aspect of testimony whose credibility they now decide to investigate within the time limits imposed in the accompanying 1
Order. We also invite Applicants to review their l
own testimony and to' disclose all their errors in j
the course of this proceeding (or the related docket) in a single filing, together with explanations."
1
\\
5/24/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Case Management Plan)
(OL), which states, in part (pages 1, 2, 3, and 4, footnotes omitted):
"After reviewing Applicants' Proposed Case Management Plan and the responsive filings, we have i
concluded that the Plan requires further l
elaboration so that subsequent filings will not be overly simplistic, in light of the current I
condition of the plant and of the record in this case. Furthermore, the Board requires a current assessment by management of the status of the plant and of the extent to which management bears responsibility for adverse plant conditions or wishes to correct or clarify portions of our hearing record.
"The SSERs and Board Notices containing transcripts of meetings of the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) raise two kinds of 49
questions:
(1) what is the safety of the plant in light of the Staff findings, and (2) to what extent do adverse findings reflect unfavorably on the competence of Applicants' management? Related to these questions are concerns about whether Applicants now know that portions of our recor'd require correction or that the credibility of some of Applicants' witnesses is subject' to substantial doubt for reasons not previously known to the Board. Also of obvious concern is the extent to which Applicants may have failed to demonstrate the adequacy of their design process pursuant to the plan submitted in January 1984 and approved by the Board.
"... On the other hand, Applicants should demonstrate mootness with respect to all the questions discussed in the previous paragraph.
. The large number of pending issues requires Applicants to advise us of the issues, including which issues are open or are allegedly closed either by decision of this Board or by stipulation.
. To assist the Board in assessing the adequacy of Applicants' current management team, the Board requires that by June 15, 1985, Applicants file a statement of their current view of the status of the plant, including their assessment of the adequacy of the record that Applicants have created in this case. This view should delineate the responsibility of individual plant and company officials and executives and assess their performance and, if they are contir.uing with the company, whether they are competent to continue to perform their current functions. We expect this filing to be a frank, honest assessment. To the extent that there are important current uncertainties, Applicants should describe and explain those uncertainties.
Management's ability to understand and willingness to disclose its understanding of the plant condition and of prior management actions could powerfully influence our subsequent decisions."
8/20/85 NRC Staff Board Notification - Staff's Determination of Applicants' Potential Material False Statement on U-Bolt Sample (Board Notification No.85-077) 50
8/26/85 CASE letter to Licensing Board, under subject of:
NRC Staff's 8/20/85 Board Notification - Staff's Determination of Applicants' Potential Material False Statement on U-Bolt Sample (Board Notification No.85-077) 8/29/85 Board Memorandum and order (Proposal for Governance 1
of this Case) (OL), entire Memorandum and Order.
i 9/18/85 Board Memorandum (Water Recirculation Problems Caused by Paint) (OL), entire Memore.ndum.
10/2/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification) (OL), entire Memorandum and Order.
11/11/85 Board Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) (OL), entire Memorandum.
11/25/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum) (OL), entire Memorandum.
6/26/86 Board Memorandum (Board Concerns) (OL), entire j
Memorandum.
I 1
l l
9/22/86 Board Notification 86-20 from NRC Staff to NRC Commissioners, Followup of Board Notification Nos.85-067 and 85-076 Regarding Office of Investigations Report No. 4-85-008 l
Regarding the Facts Surrounding Texas Utilities Untimely Response to the Interveners Discovery Request (MAC Report) 5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC l
Comanche Peak 18roject Division, Of fice of Special Projects, l
to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, l
under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a fonner engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/1/87 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7)
(0L), see especially quoted portions under answer 1.d)(12) following.
51
1 l
l i
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings. CASE also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan 1
(hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in 1
Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Department of Labor, in the I
matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
l l
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering
)
Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon. CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(9)
(a) 2/24/84 Transcript pages 10,337/14-10,339/4 11/21/84 Transcript of conference call, Enforcement Interview, Division of Licensing, with NRC Staff, Applicants, Cygna, and CASE participating:
page 6, line 1, through page 7, line 25; page 9, line 7, et seq.; and especially page 10, line 25, through page 11, line 3.
1.d)(9)
(b) 2/22/84 Transcript page 9906/22-9907/18 11/21/84 Transcript of conference call, Enforcement Interview, Division of Licensing, with NRC Staff, Applicants, Cygna, and CASE participating, page 15, line 20, through page 16, line 10 1.d)(9)
(c) 4/24/84 Tr. 12,359-12,376/20 American National Standard ANSI / MSS SP-58, " Pipe Hangers and Supports -- Materials, Design and Manufacture;" and Standard Practice MSS SP-69, " Pipe Hangers and Supports 52
t i
1
-- Selection and Application" (see CASE Attachments A I
and B to CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, respectively)
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A, Revision 5, February 10, 1984, Page 3-20, CASE Attachment C to
]
CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order l
1.d)(9)
(d) CASE's 2/24/83 Provisional Proposed Findings of Fact, pages 3 through 59, especially pages 43 through 46 and 52 through 56 Board's 7/29/83 Proposed Initial Decision (Concerning aspects of construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions) at pages 5 through 10, item A Board's 9/23/83 Memorandum and Order (Emergency l
Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board l
Issues), at pages 37 through 40, items A, B, and C l
l Board's 10/25/83 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Order of September 23, 1983) at pages 11 and 12, item XI I
1/25/85 TUGC0 letter TXX-4404 from J. Beck to H. Denton 6/5/85 NRC lettter from V. Noonan to M. Spence 6/18/85 Meeting between NRC Staff and Texas Utilities concerning a reanalysis of the rock-structure interaction for Comanche Peak (Board Notification No.85-065 to Commissioners) 1 l
8/16/85 TUGC0 letter TXX-4537 from W. G. Counsil to D.
f R. Hunter, NRC Region IV, re:
CP-85-27, SDAR-188, deficiency regarding concrete debris found in the separation gap between the Fuel and Auxiliary Buildings, which could produce a significant increase in the l
53
)
1
9 Seismic Category 1 building response during an SSE; and any other supplemental or related documents.
9/25/85 NRC letter from V. Noonan to
't.
G. Counsil 11/18/85 TUGC0 letter TXX-4610 from W. G. Counsil to V.
Noonan Any other documents related to the preceding-listed items.
6/15/87 CPSES/FSAR Effective Page Listing 1
I 1.d)(10) Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), LBP-83-81 18 NRC 1410 et seq., especially pages 73 i
through 75.
Board's 2/8/84 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design)
Board's 2/24/84 comments at transcript pages 10,337/14-10, 339/4, and 10,339/24-10,340/5, as corrected by the Board 12/18/84 Board Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement), including the statements at pages 8 and 9 (footnotes omitted):
"Similarly, despite the Board's conclusions rejecting the flT Team's findings and Applicants' assurances that CYGNA would review pipe supports in order to resolve matters in controversy, CYGNA has adopted certain SlT findings and not gone into them, apparently at Applicants' request.
Applicants appear to have ignored the advice given by the Board at Tr. 9283-85, 87 (CYGNA's checklist should include the Walsh/Doyle concerns; there should be a measure of observer reliability; filings under the plan should be clear and fully documented; findings will not rely on unanalyzed portions of Applicants' studies; use of tables, charts and matrixes; assistance in evaluating the meaning of recurrent non-costing errors).
As a 54
1 I
4 consequence, there is no independent review of Dr.
Iotti's and Dr. Finneran's findings. Compare the Board's strong suggestion at LBP 83-81, 18 NRC l
1410, 1454-55 (1983)."
{
9/9/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's i
Continuing Role) (OL), entire Memorandum and Order.
I 6/1/87 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7)
(OL), see espeially quoted portions under answer 1.d)(12) following.
1 See also answers 1.d)(9)(a) preceding and 1.d)(11) following.
j 1.d)(11) Applicants' 2/3/84 Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)
Board's 2/24/84 comments at transcript pages 10,,337/14-10, 339/4, and 10,339/24-10,340/5, as corrected by the Board 3/13/84 Supplement to Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design) 1 5/28/87 letter f rom Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies. The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding f,/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings aad related proceed'.ngs).
6/22/87 and 6/23/37 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings. CAf>E also expects that we will rely upon some information from the DOL proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman, Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the matter of Case ho. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
55
I Respondents).
j We do not yet know exactly what information will be relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' l
failure to have already advised the Board regarding some vf the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(11)(a) 2/22/84 Transcript pages 9907 et seq.
Cygna letters to and from Applicants, including but not limited to the following:
8/26/86 letter f rom TUCCO's President Mr. Michael D. Spence to Cygna's President Mr. Richard J.
Stuart (sent to Licensing Board under cover letter f rom Applicants' counsel Mr. Wooldridge dated August 28, 1986) stating, in part (next-to-last paragraph, at top of page 2):
"With the exception of issuing the Phase 4 report, TUGC0 does not consider the other additional activities suggested in i
your letter of August 1, 1986, to be l
necessary."
9/2/86 letter from TUGCO's Executive Vice President Mr. W. G. Counsil to Cygna's President Mr. Richard J. Stuart, stating, in part (second paragraph):
" Pursuant to Mr. Spence's letter to you of August 26, 1986, please proceed to completion and issuance of your Phase IV report."
9/9/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Questions About Cygna's Continuing Role) (OL), entire Memorandum and O rd e r.
10/27/86 Applicants' Views Concerning the Present Role of Cygna 56
1 I
l Cygna RIL's shifting work over to CPRT and SWEC.
Contracts with Cygna.and other consultants.
See also answer 1.d)(9), 1.d)(9)(a,b,c) preceding.
a l
1.d)(11)(b) 10/31/84 Board Memorandum (Multiple Filings), portions l
of which were quoted under answer 1.d)(7) preceding.
j 11/19/84 Board Memorandum (Challenge to CASE's Summary Disposition Motion), which states, in part:
Page 1 l
"... Applicants then conclude that the sole l
method for litigating their plan should be through the summary disposition motions they have filed.
(Emphasis added.)
j Page 3:
" Applicants also have stated that summary disposition motions are not appropriate for matters already litigated. However, were we to apply that principle neutrally, all Applicants motions would be excluded. They relate to matters not only litigated but decided." (Emphasis in the original.)
10/2/85 Memorandum and Order (Applicants' Motion for Modification), which states, in part (page 4):
"Since Applicants have withdrawn their summary disposition motions, we will not act on those motions fj[/. Typically, when a motion is withdrawn it becomes moot. However, the submission of these summary disposition documents may reflect on management's ability to understand and control the quality of design /3/. The affidavits were submitted for our formal consideration. To the extent that the evidence was incomplete or misleading, we still expect Applicants to fulfill their obligation to correct our record.
If 57
1 t
necessary, they should explain the reason for the incomplete or misleading affidavits.
"/2/..
[ Footnote 2 omitted.]
"7[/WenotethatourDecember1983 Memorandum and Order, LBP-83-81, 18 NRC 1410 at'1452 concluded, in part, that '[T]he record before us casts doubt on the design quality of Comanche Peak, both because applicant has failed to adopt a system to correct design deficiencies and because our record is devoid of a satisfactory explanation for several design questions raised by interveners.' Nothing j
subsequently presented to us, up to this I
time, has detracted from this conclusion."
10/25/85 letter from Applicants' counsel Mr. Reynolds to Board (following 10/23/85 conference call in which Board Chairman indicated ruling the next week on Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement);
letter stated that Applicants intend to file material conce rning:
the representativeness of U-bolt support 2
configurations employed in Applicants' tests; and corrections to Applicants' affidavits supporting the motions for summary disposition regarding piping and support design.
10/29/85 Board Memorandum and Order, which states, in part (pages 6 and 7):
"This Board heard inadequate proof of design adequacy.
It then received Summary Dispositions [by Applicants] that have been withdrawn.
So we are now on the third iteration concerning design."
"We are in the advanced stages of a complex case in which Applicants have already lost on the merits on one occasion and have attempted to withdraw their summary disposition motions on a second occasion."
11/1/85 Applicants' Answer to Board Question Regarding Withdrawal of Motions for Summary Disposition 58
11/8/85 Memorandum (Withdrawal of Written Filings Motion), entire Memorandum; see quoted portions under answer 1.d)(8) preceding.
11/12/85 letter to Board from Applicants' counsel Mr.
Reynolds enclosing affidavits of John C. Finneran, Jr.,
and Robert C. Iotti, concerning:
(1) the representativeness of U-bolt support configurations employed in Applicants' tests and (2) corrections and clarifications to Applicants' affidavits supporting the motions for summary disposition regarding piping and motions for support design.
11/25/85 Board Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration of Misrepresentation Memorandum), which states, in part (page 11):
" Applicants have sought to withdraw the filings by which they initially implemented their Plan to respond to our order of December 1983. The Board has expressed its interest in examining the extent to which those filings represent a failure on the part of management to understand the design problems confronting the plant."
12/5/85 Applicants' Statement of Continuing Intent to Withdraw Motions for Summary Disposition 1.d)(11)(c) 3/13/84 Supplement to Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design).
CASE's 10/22/84 Second Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Applicants' Plan and Supplement to Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design).
10/26/84 Board Memorandum (Intent to Retain Academic Expert) (OL), entire Memorandum and Order.
11/9/84 Board Memorandum (Testimony From Dr. Arthur P.
Boresi) (OL), which states in part (page 1):
59 i
1 c
"... Applicants will not have complied with L
their plan unless Dr. Boresi submits testimony I
detailing the depth of his review and his analysis of the summary disposition motions.
Failure to file t.his testimony could affe'et the Board's confidence in Applicants' motions."
CASE's various Interrogatories regarding Dr. Boresi and his work.
CASE Attachment D to CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, especially letter of April 27, 1984, from Applicants' counsel Mr. Reynolds to Professor i
Boresi, and May 10, 1984, " Notice and Acknowledgement of Work to Be Performed by University Faculty or Professional Staff for Outside Employers," signed by Mr.
Reynolds (see also more detailed discussion in CASE's 6/6/87 Response at page 17).
l 1.d)(12) 4/24/85 Applicants' letter to NRC Staff's Mr. Noonan, and attachment, Comprehensive Action List (CAL).
11/22/85 Applicants' letter and attachments to NRC Staff's l
Mr. Noonan, under
Subject:
Response to NRC Staff Evaluation of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan 10/3/86 Board Memorandum and Order (CASE Discovery Request of June 27, 1986) (OL), espeially pages 2 and 3, item B.
10/30/86 Board Memorandum and Order (Motion to Admit New Contentions or for Reconsideration) (OL), including page 8, which states, in part:
"At this point, we know that there were enough problems with the design documents at Comanche Peak that Applicants have stated that they are reviewing essentially 100 percent of the design.
Important problems were found in the pipe support and cable tray hanger design areas.
60
" Applicants also have corroborated Staff findings concerning problems in the quality control audit program. The Staff found many problems relating to the quality of construction.
Applicants have not yet finished assessing the seriousness either of the design or construction problems."
11/19/86 Board Memorandum (December 3, Discovery Conference)
(OL).
12/22/86 Applicants' letter and attachments to NRC Staff's Mr. Noonan, under
Subject:
Transmittal of the CPSES Design Basis Consolidation Program Plan and the Civil / Structural Generic Issues Report (copy of which letter was sent to Licensing Board under cover letter of 12/22/86 from Applicants' counsel Mr. Wooldridge).
j CPRT Plan:
Rev. O, Rev. 1, Rev. 2, Rev. 3, and Rev. 4.
Transcripts of recent meetings between Applicants, NRC Staff,
{
Cygna, Stone & Webster, and/or other consultants.
4 4/24/87 letter from GAP's Ms. Billie Carde to NRC Staff's James E. Keppler, Director, Office of Special Cases.
5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes, Director, NRC Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, to Applicants' Executive Vice President, William G. Counsil, under Subject of: Allegations of Design and Construction Deficiencies.
The concerns listed in the Enclosure to that 5/28/87 letter were identified as being those of S. M. A.
Hasan, a former engineer at Comanche Peak (see listing following regarding 6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings).
6/1/87 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7)
(OL), which states, in part (pages 3, 4, and 5):
. Applicants are still responding to Board findings, in December 1983, that the design of the plant and Quality Assurance for design are deficient.
They are also responding, within the scope of Contention 5, to findings of the Nuclear 61
!L
Regulatory Commission Staff of deficiencies in OA for construction. Other portions of their current efforts are now indirectly related to CASE and Staff allegations, stemming from Cygna findings and i
CPRT findings. All of this is basic information about the plant relevant to the Contention 5.
Applicants should be aware that what is transpiring appears to be a continuously opening cone of items descended from initial Walsh/Doyle contentions.
l
. At the present time.
. we are still i
awaiting Applicants effort to accurately depict l
its current program. Applicants themselves do not yet have a final position on which Walsh/Doyle issues they accept as valid.
the issues to be litigated are still unfolding and... we have no proposal for efficiently addressing the constantly changing flux of Applicants' work...
"The complexity of this case results from CASE's success in raising questions of substance that have not yet been resolved.
Given Applicants' own difficulty in resolving those questions, as well as the Staff's reluctance to approve Applicants evolving response, it would not be proper for us to require CASE to clarify its position at this time."
6/22/87 and 6/23/87 Hasan DOL hearings and relatec proceedings.
CASE also expects that we will rely upon some j
information from the D0L proceedings of S. M. A. Hasan (hearings regarding which were held June 22 and 23, 1987, in l
Dallas, Texas, before the Honorable Alfred Lindeman,
{
Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Departmemt of Labor, in the j
matter of Case No. 86-ERA-24, S. M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v.
Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone and Webster Engineering l
Co., Inc., and Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc.,
l Respondents).
We do not yet know exactly what information will be I
relied upon.
CASE does, however, consider some of the l
testimony in those proceedings of such potential significance j
to both the operating license proceedings and the construction permit proceedings that Applicants should voluntarily provide copies of all pleadings, documents, etc.,
in that case to the Licensing and CPA Boards. Applicants' failure to do so (and, indeed, the very fact of Applicants' failure to have already advised the Board regarding some of 62 2
('
the matters involved) is considered by CASE to be further proof of CASE's contentions in the 0.L. and the CPA proceedings.
1.d)(13) CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), especially page XXV - 18, last paragraph, through end of page XXV - 19.
i I
3/19/84 10 CFR 2.206 Petition to NRC Commissioners from Billie Pirner Garde, Citizens Clinic Director, Government Accountability Project (GAP).
2/4/85 CASE Motion for Establishment of an Evidentiary Standard and Request for Board Directed Independent Inspection; see especially Footnote 1.
2/7/85 Meeting, CASE and NRC Contention 5 Panel, especially pages 9 and 10, and 18 through 22; transcript of meeting was distributed under NRC Staff cover letter of 2/21/85 from Annette L. Vietti(-Cook), Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 1, Division of Licensing.
10/3/86 Board Memorandum ar.d Order (CASE Discovery Request of June 27, 1986) (OL), especially pages 2 and 3, item B.
11/19/86 Board Memorandum (December 3 Discovery Conference) l (OL).
4/24/87 letter from GAP's Ms. Billie Garde to NRC Staff's James E. Keppler, Director, Office of Special Cases.
6/1/87 Board Memorandum and Order (Discovery Sets 1987 6,7)
(OL), see especially quoted portions under answer 1.d)(12) preceding.
CPRT Plan:
Rev. O, Rev. 1, Rev. 2, Rev. 3, and Rev. 4
.I 63
1
)
Applicants' Interrogatory 2:
"You have alleged (Amended Contention 2) that:
"'The delay in construction of Unit 1 was' caused (sic)
Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result af corporate policies which have not been discarded or reoudiated by Applicants.'".
"2.
What do you claim was the purpose of the Applicants' l
' intentional conduct?'
"a)
State all facts upon which you base your claim that the alleged purpose is ' invalid.'
"b)
Please identify all persons having knowledge of the facts described in your answer to Interrogatory 2a."
Objection:
CASE objects to that portion of Applicants' Interrogatory which asks:
"What do you claim was the purpose of the Applicants' ' intentional conduct?'" CASE's Amended Contention has to do with what Applicants' I
purpose was not, rather than what it was.
It is up to Applicants to prove l
that their purpose was valid. CASE does not have to make a determination as to what Applicants' purpose was, but only that such purpose was not valid.
CASE also objects to Applicants' Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following:
2.
Although :.he purpose of Applicants' invalid intentional conduct is not an issue with which CASE believes it must specifically deal, there are some specific indications in the record of the operating i
license proceedings of which CASE is aware. Based upon CASE's 64
I l
knowledge of the background of the operating license proceedings and the history of the Comanche Peak project, it is CASE's belief that Applicants have sacrificed quality to what some individuals apparently believed to be expediency ]2/. Designing and constructing a nuclear power plant in the canner Applicants have done is not a valid purpose. Examples of r,uch indications include, but are not limited to, the following:
Applicants have operated under the erroneous assumption
)
in the past that ft is permissible to wait until the end of the process to identify and correct design problems and that I
somehow QA does not apply to design (a notion that should l
have been expelled upon Applicants' reading the Board's l
l 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)).
Further, and of perhaps even more concern, there
)
I are indications that they are still operating under that l
1 l
assumption. Applicants also have knowingly and very l
l deliberately utilized individuals who were not sufficiently 1
competent to perform their work correctly, according to the sworn testimony of witnesses in the operating license proceedings, and this apparently in the name of expediency.
Applicants' witness Mr. Finneran testified that field
/2/ This was an erroneous assumption, in CASE's view, since it would have not only resulted in a product cf better quality but would have actually been far more expedient had Applicants instead simply chosen to make certain that Comanche Peak was properly designed and constructed correctly from the beginning.
65
t l
1 engineers who made certain changes which resulted in some instability (of pipe supports) had as their purpose "to j
resolve interference problems with the craft in the' field expeditiously" or speedily.
In the instance described (and apparently in other instances as well, considering the numerous other design problems which have now been identified at Comanche Peak), Applicants were apparently willing to (and did) use'what were, termed by Mr. Finneran to be "somewhat knowledgeable" field engineers and termed by then-NRC Region IV Senior Resident Inspector - Construction Mr. Robert Taylor as a "somewhat inexperienced engineering staff." -(See more complete discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings /3/ at pages XXV-3 through -5 and Section XXVI, especially page XXVI-2.)
This is clearly in violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as was pointed out by the Licensing Board in its 12/28/83 Order.
Since Applicants have been on notice regarding these i
matters at least since CASE raised the issues in 1982 and
)
(even if they didn't pay any attention to what CASE and its l
witnesses had to say) by the Licensing board in its 12/28/83 Order, Applicants cannot now claim that they were not aware
~~~/3/ CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), which will hereinafter be referred to as CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings.
66 l
l of this violation of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B; thic is important because it proves intent on Applicants' part.
See also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-
- 1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such a,s Applicants request beyond what is contained the preceding and in those Responses.
2.a) See answer 2. above.
2.b) One would think that practically everyone in the country should know by now (at least all individuals who are familiar with the complete history of the Comanche Peak proceedings).
Applicants' Interrogatory 3:
"You have alleged (Amended Contention 1) that:
"'The delay in construction of Unit I was caused (sic)
Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants.'".
"3.
List all the ' corporate policies' which the Consolidated Interveners refer to in Amended Contention 2; and with respect to each:
"a)
Identify the person (s) who formulated or promulgated the ' corporate policies'.
"b)
Specify, with as much precision as possible, the date(s) upon which these ' corporate policies' were formulated or promulgated.
67 L
"c)
Specify when each corporate policy was first implemented?
"d) tiow was each ' corporate policy' implemented?"
l Answer:
]
l 3.
See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to l
1
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a
{
i Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
3.a) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
3.b) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
3.c) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
3.d) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
Applicants' Interrogatory 4:
"You have alleged ( Amended Contention 2) that:
"'The delay in construction of Unit I was caused (sic)
Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which l
have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants.'".
"4.
Identify any action by the Applicants' (sic) upon which the Consolidated Interveners rely to support the contention that the Applicants have not discarded or repudiated the alleged 'ecrporate policies,' and include a description of:
"a)
Who undertook the action?
"b) When the action occurred?
68
_______-_________D
R q
"c)
Cite all documents which make reference to the alleged action by the Applicants."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
It is unanswerable as worded. The problem, in this particular instance, is what Applicants have not done, which is that they have not discarded or repudiated the corporate policies.
See also answer to Interrogatory 30 herein.
Answer:
l Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon i
same, CASE offers the following:
4 Unless Applicants are willing to now answer their own Interrogatory 4 and its sub-parts themselves, and to admit their mistakes and management's role in such mistakes publicly and in the record, they have proved CASE's contention.
In addition, 1
there may be certain actions by Applicants which support CASE's contention; to the extent that CASE has already identified such actions, they are contained in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
1967-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and in this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
4.a) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory, except as indicated in answer 4. preceding.
69 l
4.b) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory, except as indicated in answer 4. preceding.
4.c) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory, except as indicated in answer 4 preceding.
l Applicants' Interrogatory 5:
J "With regard to the alleged bases for Amended Contention 2:
"5.
Identify the docum'ent which the Consolidated Interveners refer to in Footnote 2 as supporting the alleged bases."
Answer:
In Consolidated Interveners' 9/30/86 Amended Contentions 1 and 2, Footnote 2, we inadvertently referenced Appendix B of CASE's 2/4/85 Motion for Establishment of an Evidentiary Standard and Request for Board Directed Independent Inspection. The correct reference should have been Appendix B to CASE's 1/31/86 Request for Imposition of Fine, for Suspension of Construction Activities, and for a Hearing on Application to Renew I
Construction Permit. The same Appendix B was also included as part of j
Attachment I to CASE and Meddie Gregory's 5/27/86 Opposition to Appeal of I
1 TUEC and NRC Staff.
CASE apologizes for any inconvenience that this inadvertent error may have caused.
Applicants' Interrogatory 6:
"With regard to statement of Basis A.1, viz.:
"' Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to reform their QA/QC program in the face of 70
i consistent criticism, "6.
Please specify each and every instance in which the j
Applicants have refused to take positive action to reform their QA/0C Program; including in your answer:
"a)
A precise definition of the ' positive action' which was refused.
"b)
The identities of the person (s) who deliberately refused to take ' positive action.'
"c)
The dates on which the alleged ' deliberate refusal' took place.
"d)
The exact manner in which each deliberate refusal was made manifest, and "e)
A citation to all documents which refer or relate to the
' deliberate refusal.'"
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad. Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant, performing analyses beyond those which CASE might otherwise perform. There are many ways in which Applicants could (and should) have taken positive action but chose not to.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant.is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regula tions. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have already thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of the root cause/ generic implications analysis which the Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, and CASE had been expecting Applicants to perform.
l 71 1
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following:
6.
Unless Applicants are willing to now answer their own Interrogatory 6. and its sub parts themselves, and to admit their mistakes and management's role in such mistakes publicly and irl the record, they have proved CASE's contention.
In addition, there may be certain actions by Applicants which support CASE's contention; to the extent that CASE has already identified such actions, they are contained in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and in this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as I
Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
l 6.a) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory, except to the extent indicated in answer 6. preceding. To the extent that Applicants' witnesses and counsel have tried to convince the Licensing Board that there were no safety-related problems at Comanche Peak, this could possibly be considered such an instance i
in which Applicants have refused to take positive action (although i
it actually goes even beyond merely refusing to take positive I
action).
72
6.b) To the extent that the attempts to convince the Board referenced in answer 6.a) preceding are considered such refusal to take positive action, see answer 35 herein.
Beyond this, CASE has not l
yet prepared an analysis which would answer this Interrogatory; further, we do not yet know the complete answer to this Interrogatory.
6.c) CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
6.d) See answer 6. precedingi beyond this, CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
6.e) See answer 6. preceding.
l I
Applicants' Interrocatorv 7:
1 "With regard to statement of Basis A.1, viz.:
"' Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to reform their QA/0C program in the face of consistent criticism, "7.
Describe all criticism (s) to which the Consolidated Interveners refer to in its (sic) statement of basis A.I."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
Further, the i
manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require l
CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant, I
performing analyses beyond those which CASE might otherwise perform.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak Plant is itself a clear indication that J
)
i 73 1
i l
they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to 4
know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have already thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of the root 1
cause/ generic implications analysis which the Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, and CASE had been expecting Applicants to perform.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. Generally, criticisms from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, NRC Region IV, the NRC CAT Team, the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT), the NRC Staf f, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), CASE and its witnesses, whistleblowers, the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANI), and various reports or other indications from Applicants' on consultants.
See also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), and 5.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained the preceding and in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 8:
"With regard to statement of Basis A.1, viz. :
"' Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to reform their QA/0C program in the face of consistent criticism, "8.
With regard to each alleged criticism identified in response to Interrogatory 8 (sic -- CASE is assuming this should 74
i l
be Interrogatory 7), please answer the following:
"a)
State the source of the alleged criticism.
"b)
Indicate the date(s) the alleged criticism was made.
"c)
Was the alleged criticism communicated to the Applicants?
l "d)
If the alleged criticirm was communicated to the Applicants, identify the person (s) to whom it was communicated.
"e)
If the alleged criticism was communicated to the Applicants, indicate the manner in which the Applicants were in f o rme d.
"f)
State the dates on which the alleged criticism was communicated to the Applicants.
"g)
Cite all documents which indicate the existence of the alleged criticism and all documents which indicate that the alleged criticism was communicated to the Applicants."
Obiection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
These are questions to which Applicants should have the answers already (and if they do not, they have again helped prove CASE's contention). CASE objects to having to do Applicants' work for them (see Objection to Interrogatory 7. preceding).
]
I I
Answer:
8.a) To the extent that CASE has already identified some such criticisms, see CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, l
snd 11. CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as l
l Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
75
1 8.b) To the extent that CASE has already identified some such criticisms, see CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and q
Motion for a Protective Order, and this 7/6/87 Supplementary 1
Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, and 11. CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
l 8.c) Except as indicated in CASE's 6/6/67 Response to Applicants'
)
Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and this 7/6/87 Supplementary j
Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, and 11, CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses and does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
8.d) Except as indicated in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, i
and 11, CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses and does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
8.e) Except as indicated in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.1987-1) and 1'
76
J 4
n
\\\\
j Motion for a Protectiv,e Order, Lnd this 7/6/87 Supplementary 1
Response, especially responses ' to Interrogatories 1.c), l.d),
5~,
1 and 11, CASE has not prepared at this time a list'such as l
Appl)cantsrequest beyond what is'Eontained in those Responses and 1
does not yet knowtheanswertothisInterrogatory.
~
1 1
l l
l 8.f) Except as indicated in CASE's 6/6/57 Response to Applicants'
~
Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective 0rder,'and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especia21y responses to Interrogatories 1.c), l.d), 5, I
and 11, CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses 21<3 does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
I 8.g) Except as indicated in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, i
and 11, CAS? has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses and does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
s
\\
Applicants' Interrogatory 9:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
l
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental j
engineering principles, 77
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'
"9.
List every instance where the Applicants have ' failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles.'"
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
Further, the manner in whic' Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant, performing analyses beyond those which CASE might otherwise perform. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in ttr history of the Comanche Peak Plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have already thoroughly investigated matters such on these as part of the root causc / generic implications analysis which the Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, and CASE had been expecting Applicants to perform.
Answer:
Without uaiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the fr~~
nag.
CASE has not yet identified every lastance where the Applicants iailed to correctly apply,undamental engineering s
o 78
principles," nor have we made a list such as Applicants request in their Interrogatory. We therefore are unable at this time to respond to the specific manner in which Applicants have worded their Interrogatory.
However, some specific instances include those listed in Answer 11 herein following (see Answer 11.)
i Applicants' Interrogator 10:
l l
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique I
designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"10.
For any instance listed in response to Interrogatory 9, please answer the following:
"a)
Specify which fundamental engineering prined.ple was allegedly violated.
"b)
State the sources from which you derive the engineering principle.
"c)
Identify the person (s) who allegedly failed to apply the engineering principle.
"d)
State the date(s) on which the alleged misapplication occurred.
"e)
Cite all documents which reference or support your 79 b
conclusion that such a failure occurred."
Objection:
l CASE objects to-this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have. phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as
{
Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even_asking questions such as these ct this point in the history of the 8
Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these l
questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such I
as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
l Answer:
i Without waiving our oojection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. To the extent that such principles have been identified, see answer to Interrogatory 11 following herein.
10.a)
See objection preceding and answer to Interrogatory 11 following.
l 10.b)
NRC regulations Industry codes to which Applicants are committed (AISC, etc.)
Various excerpts from various accepted authoritative textbooks Applicants' Specification MS-46A and other specifications to -
which Applicants are committed A.pplicants' FSAR (those revisions which were in effect at the time) 80 i
10.c)
CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
10.d)
CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
10.e)
To the extent to which CASE has identified such documents, see answer to Interrogatory 11 following herein.
Applicants' Interrogatory 11:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, vic.:
"' Applicants have faile'd to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 30, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"11.
List each ' unique design' that the Applicants failed to
' properly identify' in their PSAR."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak Plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance 81
with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
CASE has not yet identified every unique design which the Applicants f ailed to properly identify in their PSAR (and it appears that Applicants themselve's, according to recent SDAR's filed with the NRC, are still identifying designs and/or design problems which are unique), nor have we made a list such as Applicants request in their Interrogatory. We therefore are unable at this time to respond to the specific manner in which Applicants have worded their Interrogatory.
However, some specific instances include, but are not limited to, the-following:
Allowable loads and safety factors (Walsh/Doyle Findings, Section 1, especially 1-3)
Calculational errors, erroneous equations, erroneous output for pipe enalysis, and errors in equations that are intended to justify a position generically, etc. (Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages 1-4 through
-5, II-7,Section XIX)
FSAR violations (Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages 1-3, 11-5, 11-10)
Failure to consider cumulative effects (including loads induced on pipe affecting loads on suppnrts) (Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages 1-6 and
-7, and 1-15 through-17, I-17 through-19, and Section XIV)
Reduction of properties of A500 steel (Walsh/Doy2e Findings, pages I-12 through -15; Board's 10/6/83 Partial' Initial Decision (Change in Material Properties for A500 Steel)
U-Bolts used as one-way supports acting as two-way supports (Walsh/Doyle Findings, Section 11) 82
l Contradictory memoranda, guidelines, procedures, etc. (Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages 11-3, 11-8)
Lack of concern with seismic displacement of the pipe on the support or the consequences (Walsh/Doyle Findings, page II-4)
Unknown margin of safety for U-Bolt (Walsh/Doyle Findings, page II-7)
Failure to adequately consider and account for thermal and seismic movement for U-Bolts used as one-way constraints (Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages II-8 through -10)
Instability of supports (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section III)
U-bolts cinched up and frames with zero clearance (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section IV)
Multiple plane supports for structures (wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling, floor-to-wall pipe supports, dif ferential seismic displacement, and concrete creep displacement effects) (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section VI)
NPSI Richmond / tube steel method of support design (Walsh/Doyle FindingsSection VII)
Design of Richmond inserts and method used to arrive at allowables (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section VIII)
Local displacements problem with stress and effective stiffness (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section IX)
Self weight acceleration of pipe supports (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section X)
Problems with stiffness factors for reismic analysis (actual stiffness vs. generic stiffness / displacement) (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XI)
ITT Grinnell torsional rigidity factor and the use of stiffness analyses to determine distribution of loading to frames from axial supports (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XII)
Kick loads (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XV) i Friction (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XVI)
Induced loads from trunnions (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XVII)
Section properties (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XVIII).
Violation of ASME Section XI "In service inspection" (Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XX) 83
i Shear distribution in bearing connections (Walsh/Doyle Findings, Section f
XXI) i Applicants neglected to consider the SSE lcading conditions on the Richmond inserts and Hilti bolts Applicants have utilized unique damping factors Applicants' system concept for cable tray supports is unique (Appendix 10, CTS)
Applicants failed to implement the multimodal response factor of 1.5 for cable tray supports, conduit supports, and HVAC supports Applicants' design control was unique (CMC program, CTH appendix 21)
CASE's answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Dispostion on design QA Many of the specific items discussed in detail in the Walsh/Doyle Findings Applicants' Interrogatory 12:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz. :
I
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly' identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their f ailure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such' deficiencies.'".
"12.
For each design listed in response to Interrogatory 11, please explain the basis for your conclusion that it was/is
' unique.'"
Objection:
84 1
CASE objects to this interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrcsed their Interrogatory wculd require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked). consultant. The fact that Applicants are 1
even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cayse/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objectior, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
CASE has not yet identified every unique design which the Applicants failed to properly identify in their PSAR (and it I
appears that Applicants themselves, according to recent SDAR's filed with the NRC, are still identifying designs and/or design problems which are unique), nor have we made a list such as Applicants request in their 1
Interrogatory. We therefore are unable at this time to respond to the specific mannar in which Applicants have. worded their Interrogatory.
j i
However, some specific instances include,, but are not limited to, those listed (along with specific references) in answer 11. precedidng.
Applicants' Interrogatory 13:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental 1
85
4 engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique i
designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed nuch of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B,' including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"13.
List every aspect of the plant which was constructed
)
before its design was completed, and include an explanation of any j
principle or requirement whiEh dictated any different sequence of i
design and construction from that employed by the Applicants."
objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following:
13.
Unless Applicants are willing to now answer their own Interrogatory for and its sub parts themselves, and admit their 86
mistakes and management's role in such mistakes publicly and in the record, they have proved CASE's contention.
In addition, I
there maybe certain actions by Applicants which support CASE's contention; to the extent that CASE has already identified such actions, they are contained in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
1987-1) and Motion f or a Protective Order, and in this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories
- 1. c ), 1. d ), 5, and 11. - C ASE ha s no t prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Respoases. CASE does not yet know the complete answer to this interrogatory.
Applicants' Interrogatory 14:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles, l
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique I
designs in their PSAR, l
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to i
its design having been completed, i
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including.their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"14.
List every section of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B that the Applicants have not complied with."
87 j
w__-_______
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
The manner in which Applicants j
have phrased their interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following, which has already been expressed by CASE or others. CASE has not yet identified every section of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B with which Applicants have not complied; there are numerous instances throughout the extensive record in the operating license proceedings. These include, but are not limited to, those indicated in the following:
~
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1:
NRC regulations do not allow design of nuclear power plants by speculation (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle i
Findings, pages: 1-8)
Reduction of properties of A500 steel (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: 1-12 through 15; see also Board's 10/6/83 Partial Initial Decision (Change in Material Properties for A500 Steel)
Inadequate safety factor for anchor bolts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: 1-19) 88
1 l
Procedure for the design of pipe supports in the containment is based on a number of erroneous engineerit.g principles (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
VII-36, XXX-9)
Tube steel method of support design (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: 1-21, VI-14, VII-36, XIX-25)
General design criteria for nuclear power plants (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: VIII-3) 1 Criteria 1 states:
if the code used are not sufficiently adequate, they must be modified (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
VIII-3, -18)
Not combining the overall effects of displacement (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
IX-17)
Effects resulting from seismic acceleration of the support steel and hardware have not been included and combined with the design loads (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle
)
Findings, page:
X-8)
)
{
Actual effects of a seismic event are unknown quantity, since the analysis is based on only a small percentage of the overall contributors to the final results (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XI-1)
Procedure used was not the correct method to determine stress levels in doubt (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XII-7, XXX-15)
Damage to two elements from the same initial cause were addressed at two points in time several years apart (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: XIII '6, XXX-16)
Loads which they consider to be negligible are routinely omitted from consideration (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVI-5, XXX-16)
Applicants are relying on friction for U-bolts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XV-4, XXX-17)
Effects of friction have been neglected (see more detailed discussion _in CASE's Walr'!Doyle Findings, pages:
XVI-8, XXX-18) i Applicants did not include generic stiffness for rotation to supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVII-8, XXX-19) 89
)
a
1 I
J i
Section properties (see more detailed discussion in CASE's 1
Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: XVIII, XXX-19)
Used two sets of erroneous damping factors for the same structural l
condition (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: XXII-5, XXX-22)
Construction and design at Comanche Feak are indeterminate or l
totally inadequate,(see more detailed discussion in CASE's
)
Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: XXV-18, XXX-25) l l
Incompetence of Comanche Peak management (see more detailed j
discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages XXVI-31, XXX-27) l Applicants cannot state what the safety factor of anchor bolts is with any degree of accuracy (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
U-bolts cinched up on run pipe and frames with zero clearance (see
(
more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-6)
ASME is inadequate (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXX-7)
Regarding adequacy (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXX-11)
Disregarding effects of local displacement (see more detailed l
discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-13) d Self weight acceleration of pipe supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-13)
Problems with stiffness factors for seismic analysis (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-14)
Errors in equations that are intended to justfy a position generically (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-20) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2:
Inadequate safety factors for anchor bolts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
I-17 through
-19)
Tube steel method of support design (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
1-21, VI-14, VII-36, XIX-90 L__________--___-______--
N
25) i Bolts received unaccounted-for load, will cause failure of the U-bolts (re: suf ficient margin of safety)
(see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
II-1,
-6, -10)
Criterion 2 states:
that sufficient margin must be maintained I
due to the unknowns in selections of the seismic criteria for design (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
VIII-3, -18) j Not combining the overall effects of displacement (see more a
detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
IX-17)-
See Criteria II of 10 CFR Fart 50, Appendix A (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: X-2)
Eff ects resulting f rom seismic acceleration of the support steel and hardward have not been included and combined with the design loads (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle
)
Findings, page:
X-8)
Actual effects of a seismic event are unknown quantity, since the analysis is based on only a small percentage of the overall contributors to the final results (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XI-1)
Damage to two elements from the same initial cause were addressed at two points in time several years apart (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walch/Doyle' Findings, pages:
XIII-6, XXX-16)
Loads which they consider negligible are routinely omitted from consideration (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XIV-5, XXX-16) 1 Applicants did not include generic stiffness for rotation to supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVII-8, XXX-19)
^
Section properties (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVIII-5, XXX-19)
Used two sets of erroneous damping factors for the same structural condition (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: XXII-5, XXX-22)
Not the Applicants, nor the NRC, nor anyone else has the slightest idea of what the margin of safety actually is for the cinched-up bolts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXV-7) 1 91
Construction and design at Comanche Peak are indeterminate or totally inadequate (see'more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXV-18, XXX-25)
U-bolts used as one-way supports acting as two-way supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
Applicants cannot state what the safety factor of anchor bolts is with any degree of accuracy (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
U-bolts cinched up on run pipe and frames with zero clearance (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-6)
Procedure for the design of pipe supports in the containment is based on a number of erroneous engineering principles (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-9)
Regarding margins for seismic (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-11)
Self weight acceleration of pipe supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXX-13)
Problems with stiffness factors for seismic analysis (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXX-14 ) '
Errors in equations that are intended to justify a position generically (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page XXX-20) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 4:
Tube steel method of support design (see more detailed discussison in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
1-21, V1-14, V11-36, XIX-25)
Supports in question cannot prevent or mitigate the consequences of a LOCA (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle i
Findings, pages:
XXIIl-4, XXX-23) l Applicants cannot state what the safety factor of anchor bolts is with any degree of accuracy (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
Procedure for the design of pipe supports in the containment is based on a number of erroneous engineering principles (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-9) 92
i Errors in equations that are intended to justify a position generically (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-20) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I:
In addition to the preceding, there are also violations reported in NRC Inti action Reports. We have broken these down (where indicated) by the specific Criterion which was violated.
(It should be noted that the complete number of the Inspection Reports would include the prefix 50-445 or 50-446, for Unit 1 or Unit 2 of Comanche Peak; for example, the complete Inspection Report number for what is shown as 79-27/79-26 would be 50-445/79-27, 50-446/79-26.)
NRC Inspection Reports:
73-02 75-06
. i 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II:
1 NRC Inspection Reports:
73-02 75-06 79-11 80-15 83-03/83-01 84-32/84-11 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III:
"Dee':;n Control" (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walin'Doyle Findings, pages:
1-21, 11-10)
/
bealing with, nonconforming cot.ditions, does not address nonconforming designs (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
III-10) 93 s
1 U-bolts cinched up on run pipe and frames with zero clearance (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
IV-19, XXX-6)
Procedure for the design of pipe supports in the containment is based on a number of erroneous engineering principles (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
VII-36, XXX-9)
Not combining overall effects of displacement (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
IX-17)
Procedure used was not the correct method to determine stress levels in doubt (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XII-7, XXX-15)
Damage to two elements from the same initial cause were addressed at two points in time several years apart (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XIII-6, XXX-16)
Loads which they consider to be negligible are routinely omitted from consideration (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XIV-5, XXX-16)
Applicants are relying on friction for U-bolts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XV-4, XXX-17)
Effects of friction have been neglected (see more detailed i
discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVI-8, XXX-18)
Applicants did not include generic stiffness for rotation to supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVII-8, XXX-19)
Section properties (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XVIII-5, XXX-19)
Errors in equations that are intended to justify a position generically (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XIX-25, XXX-20)
Inservice inspection (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XX-3, XXX-21)
{
Used two sets of erroneous damping factors for the same structural condition (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XX11-5, XXX-22)
Failed to satisfy requirements concerning design interf ace control (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, 94
pages:
XXIV-1, XXX-24)
Walsh & Doyle were involved with the technical process that leads to design output documents (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXIV-10)
Construction and design at Comanche Peak indeterminate or totally inadequate (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXV-18, XXX-25)
Incompetence of Comanche Peak management (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXVI-31, XXX-27)
)
Applicants cannot state what the safety factor of the anchor bolts is with any degree of accuracy (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
]
l U-bolts used as one-way supports acting as two-way supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-1)
Procedure for the design of pipe supports in the containment is based on a number of erroneous principles (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-9)
Disregarding effects of local displacements (see more detailed i
discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXX-13)
NRC Inspection Reports:
73-02 85-16/85-13 85-18/85-15
)
86-03/86-02 i
86-04/86-03 86-07/86-05 86-15/86-12 86-22/86-20 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV:
Inspection Reports:
95
i 73-02 82-03/82-02 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V:
j Exhibits attached show loss of. control and f ailure.to conform to sections V and VIII (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-7) l Procedures for installation and inspection of the "NPSI" seismic sway strut jam nuts do not appear adequate (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-ll)
Loose jam nuts (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-11)
Inspection Reports:
73-02 75-05 75-06 75-10
)
76-01 76-07 i
76-08 77-02 78-05 78-11 76-12 78-13 78-18 79-03 79'-06 i
96
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (continued):
_ Inspection Reports (continued):
)
79-04 79-18 79-19 79-27/79-26 79-28/79-27 79-31/79-29 80-01 80-03 80-08 i
l 80-11 80-13 80-15 80-17 80-20 80-23/80-23 81-02/81-02 81-15 82-30 83-07/83-04 83-15/83-09 83-18/83-12 83-23 83-40 84-18 97
I 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (continued):
Inspection Reports (continued):
84-21 l
84-22/84-07 i
84-26 84-29/84-10 84-31 84-32/84-11.
l 84-45 l
85-02 85-06 85-07/85-05 I
85-13/85-09 85-14/85-11 85-16/85-13 85-18/85-15 86-01/86-01 86-03/86-02 86-04/86-03 86-06/86-04 i
86-07/86-05 86-14/86-11 l
86-15/86-12 86-20/86-17 86-22/86-20 I
86-26/86-22 98
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI:
Inspection Reports:
73-02 76-OS 77-10 63-14/83-08 83-18/83-12 85-14/85-11 '
86-04/86-03 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix L, Criterion VII:
Inspection Reports:
73-02 83-18/33-12 86-04/86-03 86-22/86-20 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VIII:
Exhibits attached show loss of control and failure to conform to sections V and VIII (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-7)
I Inspection Reports:
73-02 84-31 i
I 99 1
1 a
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX:
Inspection Reports:
77-10 86-03/86-02 86-26/86-22 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion X:
Cable tray supports, conduit Hilti bolts, large bore ASME pipe supports, small bore ASME pipe supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXVII-10)
Large bore ASME pipe supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-11 )
Small bore ASME pipe supports (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-12)
Inspection Reports:
84-22/84-07 84-26 84-34/84-13 85-16/85-13 86-03/86-02 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI:
Inspection Reports:
84-18 84-21 100
i.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion X11:
Inspection Reports:
84-21 l
l 84-31 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion X111:
Inspection Reports:
83-18/83-12 85-13/85-09 l
10 CFR Part 50,. Appendix B, Criterion XV:
NRC Region IV Staff is in violation of NRC's own Guidance regarding reporting (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
111-19)
Multiple plane supports for structures (wall-to-slab) (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
VI-14)
Inspection Reports:
78-12 86-01/86-01 86-04/86-03 86-14/86-11 86-22/86-20 86-26/86-22 86/31/86-25 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI:
(
NRC Region IV Staff is in violation of NRC's own Guidance i
regarding reporting (see more-detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
III-19) 101
.s t
____m
s&As o
!I:
[
((/'j\\NN ffp '\\[ @$h/
//
IMAGE EVALUATION q'ejp,f
%,4]j'[&q 4
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
+
l.0
- .M M y lll El r
ew lllll=2o I.I r
l 1.8 1.25 l 1.4 I
i.6 l
l 150mm I
6" ch,,,4
'*t(('$
o yv
.y+
f 'gy (O
$$[ g$
((/// / [e'bh;{F (
h IMAGE EVALUATION s?f77 y&
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
~
{%
~ *'f&g Ysy,' W kt<*%
i.0 L' i"'" si!H u ;'
p=2 gr b U; llll\\?2 1
1.1 1
I 1.25 1.4 1.6 4
150mm -
6" 4 %op
$ *b* x 4
3 4$, g; xlllk\\
x W, v ;;'
f
/;,
y6 s, s
y Op QU w
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._____.__.______.____._____..__._______._____j
a) s.ye 'li b g
o v
$e sf"'[ *'t, ', %*4#'2 IMAGE EVALUATION f4:%
I
/v Y/o//1"
$ff' TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
f ',,' ? 4 %
\\\\\\\\\\/
,77,
\\,///
1.0 E TE g j na u
y711BM P8 1.25 1.4 11.6 l
l 4
150mm 4-6" b
Akt h>p f p /j' \\\\
4 SW
, 4,
.,p, A,#o 4
6
(
.g Of v
t
4>
.4 i o
'0N h:< p'V'QSf*
[I
////g%
IMAGE EVALUATION
% q[ [ j k/777 f
g,+p$*
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4f W
i$ p l.0
- =: m x c ta
=
l,l fb lllN l 1.8 s.._ _
l.25 1.4 l lm.1.6a,-e-4 150mm 6"
h>,A&p; 4*+ggsA A
(
s O
- fs* vA/
.s N
33 e' y.,
O y
y l
I Multiple' plane supports for: structures (wall-to-slab) (see more
' detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pa'ge: VI-14)
Inspection Reports:
1 75 1 i
'85-07/85-05 1
i 85-l'1/85-06 j
'86-03/86-02 li l'
I 86-04/86-03 86-08/86-06 86-20/86-17 87-07/87-06 10'CFR Part 50, Appendix B,. Criterion XVI and 10 CFR 50.55(e):
Misinterpreted and misapplied to the NRC's own regulations regarding what is and is not reportable (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:- 111-12 through
-19 V-7)
Shear tie reinforcing steel being omitted from a concrete placement in the Unit 2 containment (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages: VII-22) l Damage to two elements from the same initial cause were addressed i
l' at two points in time several years apart (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
X111-5, -6) j Failed to satisfy requirements-concerning design interface control (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXIV-1, XXX-24) l~
L Violation.known by Applicants (see more detailed discussion in
?
CASE's Walsh/Doyle' Findings, page:
XXIV-10) l Applicants decided not to comply with interface requirements for i
the'STRUDL group (see more detailed. discussion in'CAE's
~
'Walsh/Doyle Findings, page: XXIV-10)
Prelim 1.ary. design'and' preliminary construction.(see more detailed j
discussion'in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXV-3, -18) l 4
t.
I
.102 l
n.________
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI and 10 CFR 50.55(e)
(continued):
Failure to report reportable items (see more detailed discussion
-in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages:
XXV-12 through -15, XXVII-5 through
-9,
-31, -32)
Applicants' disregard of additional load at the Richmond insert, A307 bolt, and tube steel connection (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXVII-31 )
i NRC Region IV Staff is in violation of NRC's own Guidance regarding reporting (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page:
XXIX-1)
Support that failed at tydro (see more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyls Findings, page:
XXX-16)
Inspection Reports:
77-04 77-06 78-10 78-16 79-01 79-11 80-03 80-08 80-12 80-18 l
84-22/84-07 l
84-34/84-13 84-40/84-15 87-07/87-06 103
i 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII:
Inspection Reports:
82-25/82-13 85-14/85-11 86-04/86-03 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVIII:
Inspection Reports:
i 82-025/82-13 84-32/84-11 j
86-08/86-06 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B:
Licensing Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)
Inspection Reports:
74-03 86-02 In addition, since the accuracy and adequacy of NRC Region IV's inspection and enforcement activities at Comanche Peak have now been called into strong question in Congressional hearings, the following are also of concern, since it appea's that they,perhaps should have r
also been termed " Violations" rather than as designated in.the Inspection Reports listed below:
Deficiencies:
Inspection Reports:
l 74-02 75-06/A.3.a l
104
1 l
l 1
\\
77-10 (Criterion IX) 78-16 76-20 79-01 79-16 80-08 80-12 80-18 85-15/SS-12 Deviations:
Inspection Reports:
76-07 l
77-02 76-16 l
1 78-20 1
79-04 80-20 1
85-11/85-06 85-13/85-09 85-14/85-11 85-16/85-13 85-18/85-15 86-01/86-01 86-03/86-02 86-04/86-03 105
Deviations (continued):
Inspection Reports (continued):
86-05 86-07/86-05 86-OS/86-06 86-15/86-12 86-22/86-20 86-26/86-22 86-31/86-25 87-02 Infractions:
Inspection Reports:
76-08 76-09 77-10 (Criterion IX) 78-13 76-20 79-01 79-11 80-11 81-14 106
Applicants' Interrogatory 15:
i "With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
i
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their f ailure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"15.
For every section of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B identified in response to Interrogatory 14, please answer the following:
"a)
Explain the precise manner in which the Applicant (sic) failed to comply with the specified section.
"b)
Indicate the date(s) the alleged failure to comply took place.
"c)
Identify all person (s) who were involved in this alleged failure to comply.
"d)
Cite all documents which indicate that the Applicants allegedly failed to comply."
Objection:
CASE objects to this interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have 107
l i
i i
their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis, i
l Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, l
CASE offers the following.
l 15.a)
See details in documents referenced in Answer to Interrogatory 14 preceding.
15.b)
To the extent such information is included, see details in documents referenced in Answer to Interrogatory 14 preceding.
15.c)
To the extent such information is included, see details in documents referenced in Answer to Interrogatory 14 preceding.
Other than that, CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
I 15.d)
See Answer to Interrogatory 14 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 16:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles, 108
~
l
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its dssign having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part l
50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"16.
List every instance where, in the Consolidated Interveners' opinion, the Applicants failed to promptly ident2fy design deficiencies."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants hcve phrased their Interrogatory would recuire CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly 1 investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
l l
Answer:
l 1
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
j 16.
CASE has not yet identified every instance where Applicants failed to promptly identify design deficiencies. However, generally we would include most, if not all, of the design items which 109
_____-___a
l Applicants have identified in the past.five years as being potentially reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e), since Applicants l
were trying very hard to convince the Licensing Board at least as l
early as 1982 that there were never many significant problems at Comanche Peak and, even if there were a few, they had all been corrected, and that the board should hurry up and give Applicants an operating license.
Because of this, CASE considers that any potentially significant problems which have been identified since that time (including, b~ut not necessarily limited to those reported as potential 50.55(e) items) would fall into the category of instances where Applicants failed to promptly identify desien deficiencies.
Identifying such problems only after years of fighting with CASE and its engineering witnesses, Messrs. Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh, and after years of denial to the Licensing l
Board, does not constitute prompt identification of design deficiencies.
One of Applicants' relatively new personnel seems to recognize the problem (and the uniqueness of some of the problems) at least outside the record of the Licensing hearings (although, as discussed at pages 9 and 10 of CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
1987-1) and Motion f or a Protective Order, item (8), it appears that Applicants have no intention of ever making such admissions in the record of the proceedings).
Mr. W. G. Counsil, Executive Vice President of TU Electric, was quoted in a 6/22/87 DALLAS MORNING NEWS article (see page 1 of CASE Attachment G hereto):
110
q
"... when Counsil, who has more than 25 years of.
experience in nuclear power, joined the Comanche Peak project in May 1985, he immediately noted flaws during his first tour of the facility near Glen Rose.
"'There were some very unique designs I had never seen in a nuclear plant bef ore,' Counsil said.
'I knew I had problems with pipe supports. There wasn't'a doubt in my mind.'
1 I
" Suspecting more widespread problems, Counsil ordered what he hoped would be a quick review of a small sample of the plant design.
"More than two years after Counsil's decision, the program has grown by about $2 billion and is the largest across-the-board design review in the history of commercial nuclear power.
" Problems have been found in literally every corner of the plant. Designs for all safety-related equipment, systems and buildings are undergoing an exhaustive, unprecedented check: line by line, calculation by calculation.
(It should be noted that, although it is encouraging to CASE that someone with Applicants appears to have finally recognized the problem and is attempting to deal with it, we are still very much concerned that Mr. Counsil is only one man, who simply cannot physically be everywhere at once, and that many of the same individuals who have been involved with the plant for years are still there in positions of authority, and that some engineering personnel, in fact, were even rehired by Stone 6 Webster as part of the supposedly new team to identify and correct problems at the plant.
CASE's concerns in this regard have been increased recently by information from the DOL case of S. M. A. Hasan; see listings at pages 9 and 10 and elsewhere herein under "5/28/87 letter from Christopher I. Grimes and "6/22/b7 and 6/23/87 111
i l
Hasan DOL hearings and related proceedings.
." CASE is still j
very much concerned, not only with Applicants' Plan, but also with its implementation and who's doing the implementing.)
Page SA of the 6/22/87 DALLAS MORNING NEWS article (CASE Attachment O hereto) is especially instructive, since it specifica1]y details a few of the specific design problems which have now been identified at Comanche Peak and even graphically illustrates some of them.
I In addition, see details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to l
Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.
]
1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/57 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, 11, 14, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants reauest beyond what is contained in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogator 17:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
i
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental j
engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR,
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to 112 j
promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'".
"17.
List every instance where, in the Consolidated Interveners' opinion, the Applicants f ailed to correct design deficiencies."
objection:
CASE obje:ts to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear. indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer t'o these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
CASE further objects to this Interrogatory as being a mischaracterization of CASE's contention, which has to do with Applicants' j
failure to promptly identify and [promptly) correct design deficiencies.
It might be that Applicants conceivably might eventually attempt to correct i
those design deficiencies which they identify and admit to; however, CASE's contention (in this particular regard) has to do with the promot correction l
of design deficiencies, not so much-their eventual correction (if possible).
i l
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
113
.)
3 I
l 17.
CASE has not yet identified every instance where Applicants failed I
to correct design deficiencies or where they have failed to l
l promptly correct design deficiencies.
'.lowever, generally we would include most, if not all, of the. design items which Applicants have identified in the past five years as being potentially reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e), since Applicants were trying very haid to convince the Licensing Board at least as early as 1
1982 that there were never many significant problems at Comanche Peak and, even if there were a few, they had all been corrected, and that the Board should hurry up and give Applicants an operating license.
Because of this, CASE considers that any potentially significant problems which have been identified since that time (including, but not necessarily limited to those reported as potential 50.55(e) items) would fall into the category of instances where Applicants failed to promptly correct design deficiencies (and perhaps failed to correct them at all -- that remains to be proved by Applicants, whose batting average regarding such proof is not too good).
In addition, see details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c),1.d), 5,11,14, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
114 J '
U -
1 i
i Applicants' Interrogatory 18:
"With regard to statement of basis A.2, viz.:
"' Applicants have failed to properly design their_ plant, specifically:
"'a)
Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles,
"'b)
Applicants failed to properly identify unique designed in their PSAR, l
"'c)
Applicants constructed much of their plant prior to its design having been completed,
"'d)
Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.'
"18.
List every instance where, in the Consolidated Interveners' opinion, the Applicants ' deliberately refused' to take positive action to correct deficiencies."
l l
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
115
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
4 18.
CASE has not yet identified every instance where Applicants have deliberately refused to take positive action to correct design 1
deficiencies.
Certainly we believe that all of the design issues raised by Messrs. Doyle and Walsh would fall into that category, l
since Applicants have fought CASE tooth and nail ever since 1982 to try to convince the licensing Board that there was no merit to j
i the concerns raised by Messrs. Doyle and Walsh, that there were never many significant problems at Comanche Peak and, even if there were a few, they had all been corrected, and that the Board
(
should hurry up and give Applicants an operating license. Because of this, CASE considers that any potentially significant problems which have been identified since that time (including, but not necessarily limited to those reported as potential 50.55(e) items) i would fall into the category of instances where Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to correct l
deficiencies.
In addition, see details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories' to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), l.d), 5, 11, 14, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
116
1 Applicants' Interrogatory 19:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their 0A/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/0C implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'
"19.
Identify all criticism of the Applicants' QA/0C program which the Consolidated Interveners allege the Applicants have ignored."
objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
In addition, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, 117
CASE offers the following.
19.
CASE has not yet identified all criticisms of the Applicants QA/QC program which Applicants have ignored.
However, it appears i
obvious to CASE that there had to have been a tremendous amount of ignoring going on for the Comanche Peak plant to have gotten into its currently indeterminate and unlicensable state.
Certainly we believe that all of the design issues raised by Messrs. Doyle and Walsh, as well as the concerns raised by other CASE witnesses l
during the operating license proceedings, and the concerns raised 1
i by many whistleblowers (many of which were later confirmed as being valid by the NRC's Technical Review Team) would fall into that category.
In addition, Applicants have fought CASE tooth and nail ever since 1982 to try to convince the Licensing Board that i
there was no merit to the concerns raised by Messrs. Doyle and
]
I Walsh, or any of CASE's other witnesses, and that there were never many significant problems at Comanche Peak and, even if there were 1
a few, they had all been corrected, and that the Board should hurry up and give Applicants an operating license.
Because of this, CASE considers that any potentially significant problems which have been identified since that time (including, but not necessarily limited to those reported as potential 50.55(e) items)
I would fall into the category of instances where Applicants deliberately refused to take positive action to' correct deficiencies.
In addition, see details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set 118
No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87-Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, 11, 14, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
However, we believe it would fill a book (even larger than this current CASE Response and probably even larger than CASE's 447 page 8/22/83 Walsh/Doyle Findings).
Applicants will be hearing further from CASE in this regard, of that you can be sure. -
Applicants' Interrogatory 20:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants. ignored consistent criticism of their QA/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable.
There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'"...
"20.
For each criticism identified in response to Interrogatory 19, please answer the following:
l "a)
State the source of the criticism.
"b)
State the date each alleged criticism was made.
"c)
Detail the date and manner in which the criticism I
communicated to the Applicants.
i "d)
Cite all documents which indicate the existence of the alleged criticism and all documents which indicate that the alleged criticism was communicated to the Applicants."
119 l
Sec Obiection and Answer to Interrogatory 19 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 21:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their 0A/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face l
of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There'is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/0C implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'"...
"21.
Identify all criticism of the Applicants' design which the Consolidated Interveners allege the Applicants have ignored."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 15 through 19 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 22:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their 0A/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at :. east four years, in the face cf warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'".
l l
"22.
For each criticism identified in response to Interrogatory 21, please provide the following:
120 w_-_-________-__________________-_______
l "a)
State the source of the criticism.
b ) State the date each alleged criticism was made.
"c)
Detail the date and manner in which the criticism communicated to the Applicants?
"d)
Cite all documents which indicate the existence of the alleged criticism and all documents which indicate that the alleged criticism was communicated to the Applicants."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 15 through 19 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 23:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/QC program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NR7, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by j
Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, i
they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or l
address and correct design deficiencies.'".
]
"23.
State the Consolidated I'ntervenors' understanding of how the Applicants ' ignored' the alleged criticism; and "a)
Identify the person (s) who the Consolidated Interveners allege ' ignored' the criticism.
"b)
State why the Consolidated Interveners assert the alleged action was ' deliberate'.
l l
"c)
Cite all documents which indicate that the alleged I
criticism was ignored."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 121 I
l 15 through 19 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 24:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable.
There is no valid purpose given by l
Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, l
they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or l
address and correct design deficiencies.'".
"24.
List every warning by independent auditors to which the Consolidated Interveners refer in statement of basis A.3."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 15 through 19 preceding.
In addition, we specifically offer the following:
1 Answer:
l l
CASE has not yet listed in the form in which Applicants are requesting it every warning by independent auditors; however, they include (but are not limited to:
Lobbin Report MAC Reports INPO Report Ebasco Report Cygna Reports Cygna Audits, etc.
122
~
I Cygna RlL's Cygna Testimony ANI Reports ASME Audits Whatever has been found by the " independent" or otherwise reviewers or auditors of their plant which are currently or have been involved in the redesign / reconstruction / reanalysis / reinspection of Comanche
)
Peak under Applicants' recent CPRT and/or other evaluations (by whatever terminology Applicants chocse to use)
Audits, etc.
The Lipinsky Report Whatever was reported to Applicants by Dr. Boresi Whatever information was reported to Applicants by any other auditors, reviewers, analysts, evaluators, or other consultants (by whatever terminology Applicants may use) who were employed (as was Dr.
Boresi) by Applicants' attorneys (rather than by Applicant directly)
Audits, etc.
i SDAR's DDR's DR's NCR's IR's Other (approximately 35 to 40 different methods) used by Applicants through the years to identify nonconforming conditions We expect additional supporting information if and when Applicants respond to the Board's Order to answer CASE's Interrogatories on Statistical Sampling, which is currently due hopefully next week Results from hot functional tests and other pre-operational and other tests Discovery responses which have been or are expected to be received from Applicants (including from the minority owners of Comanche Peak)
Applicants' Progress Reports 123
Whatever information was reported to Applicants by any other auditors, j
reviewers, analysts, evaluators, or other consultants who were employed by the minority owners of Comanche Peak To the extent that Applicants claim independence of their own auditors, any audits by Applicants' own auditors Concerns rafsed by CASE and its witnesses and whistleblowers l
Auditors Proposed findings of fact:
in operating license hearings Proposed findings of fact:
in Walsh/Doyle allegations Proposed findings of fact: in harassment and intimidation Walsh/Doyle allegations; and harassment and intimidation Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition re:
Contention 5, 1982 Responses to Applicants' 17 Motions for Summary Disposition in 1984
)
CASE's Motions for Summary Disposition CASE's response to Applicants' Motion to load fuel Applicants' Interrogatory 25:
l "With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
l 1
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/QC program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'".
"25.
List every warning by the NRC to which the Consolidated Interveners refer in statement of basis A.3."
i 124 l
l See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 15 through 19 preceding.
In addition, we specifically offer the following:
Answer:
CASE has not yet listed in the form in which Applicants are requesting it every warning by the NRC; however, they include (but are not limited to):
CAT Report SIT Report 1
Inspection and Enforcement (16E) Reports SALP Reports NRC Region IV Trending (in evidence already from 1982 operating license hearings and recent 10A Trending by Region IV,' including testimony and other information during and regarding Senator John Glenn's sub-committee Senate hearings on 4/9/87) j TRT letters SSER's F0IA responses OIA Reports OI Reports 1
Applicants' Motion to load fuel I
NRC Staff's Response to Applicants' Motion to load fuel CASE's Response to Applicants' Motion to load fuel l,
Applicants' Interrogatory 26:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their 0A/0C i
125
?
program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by l
Applicants f or why, in the face of these criticisms, j
l they refused to change their 0A/0C implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'".
"26.
List every warning by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to which the Consolidated Interveners refer in statement of basis A.3."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 15 through 19 preceding.
In addition, we specifically offer the following:
Answer:
CASE has not yet listed in the form in which Applicants are requesting it every warning by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; however, they include (but are not limited to):
Board Orders and Memoranda (some of which have been listed and quoted from in Answer 1.d) herein)
Statements by Board in transcripts of hearings, prehearing conferences, and telephone conference calls t
Applicants' Interrogatory 27:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be 126 l
L__--________--__-__--__
made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/0C implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'"...
"27.
List every instance where the Applicants refused to change their QA/0C implementation."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories l
1.c), 1.d), and 15 through 19 preceding.
CSE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those responses.
Applicants' Interrogator 28:
1 "With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz.:
)
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/0C program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face i
of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even
)
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, l
redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by l
I Applicants for why, in the face of these' criticisms, they refused to change their QA/0C implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'".
"28.
For every instance listed in reponse to Interrogatory 27, please answer the following:
9 "a)
Identify the person (s) who so refused.
"b)
Indicate on what date(s) each such refusal was manifest.
"c)
Cite all documents which support or relate to each refusal."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to interrogatories l
1.c), 1.d), and 15 through 19 preceding. CSE has not prepared at this time 127
a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 29:
"With regard to statement of basis A.3, viz. :
"' Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/QC program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or address and correct design deficiencies.'".
"29.
List every instance where the Applicants have refused to address and correct design deficiencies.
"a)
Identify the person (s) who so refused.
'"b)
Indicate on what date(s) each such refusal was manifest.
"c)
Cite all documents which support or relate to each refusal."
See previous Responses, especially Objections and Answers to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), and 15 through 19 preceding.
CSE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those responses.
l
}
128
. _ _ _ =_
1 Applicants' Interrogatory 30:
1 "With regard to statement of basis B, viz.:
"' Applicants have never acknowledged that this or any other corporate policy was the cause of the delay or that anything in the control of corporate management 1
caused the delay, and thus Applicants have never
)
discarded or repudiated the policies that caused the
]
delay. This basis is supported by the absence of any J
statements of repudiation and of any stated intent to discard any corporate policy.'
"30.
Do the Consolidated Interveners agree with the i
following statement:
"'The Applicants cannot. discard a corporate policy which the Applicants have never adopted.'"
=
Answer:
4 CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/37 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 11):
" Depending on the definition of the words used, yes."
l However, CASE also believes that Applicants' question is itself deliberately misleading and designed to duck the real issue.
CASE does not believe that it is necessary for Applicants to have actually had a l
formalized written corpor;te policy in order for such a policy to exist de i
f acto, which is ex;ctly what CASE believes the situation has been at Comanche Peak for many years (and there are indications that such a policy still exists; see especially Answers 1.c), l.d), and 16 in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, and in this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response.) The corporate policy which existed and exists in the real world is what CASE is concerned with.
129
Applicants' Interrogatory 31:
"With regard to statement of basis B, viz.:
"' Applicants have never acknowledged that this or any other corporate policy was the cause of the delay or that anything in the control of corporate management caused the delay, and thus Applicants have never discarded or repudiated the policies that caused the i
delay.
This basis is supported by the absence of any statements of repudiation and of any stated intent to discard any corporate policy.'".
"31.
If the Consolidated Interveners does (sic) not agree with the statement in Interrogatory 30, explain why."
See Answer 30 preceding.
Applicants' Interrogatory 32:
"With regard to ctatement of basis C, viz.:
"' Applicants have actually continued in place the corporate policies and personnel primarily responsible for the original delay.'
"32.
List all the ' corporate policies' to which the Consolidated Interveners refer in statement of basis C."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
In addition, 1
the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would j
require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peck plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and
)
130 1
i functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposec to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
See details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for Protective Orde and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), l.d), 5, 11, 14, 16, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 33:
"With regard to statement of basis C, viz.:
"' Applicants have actually continued in place the corporate policies and personnel primarily responsible for the original delay.'"..
"33.
Define the phrase 'actually continued in place' as used in statement of basis C."
t Answer:
CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 11):
" Applicants followed the same policy even after it was obvious that Unit I had not been properly constructed."
l l
131
l i
Applicants' Interrogatory 34:
"With regard to statement of basis C, viz.:
"' Applicants have actually continued in place the corporate policies and personnel primarily responsible for the original delay.'".
"34.
Define the phrase ' original delay' as used in statement of basis C."
Answe r:
l CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to App 1'icants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated 1
Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a protective Order, at page 11):
"The delay used by the failure to follow proper procedures and to comply with NRC requirements when first designing, inspecting, and/or constructing Unit 1."
Applicants' Interrogatory 35:
"With regard to statement of basis C, viz.:
"' Applicants have actually continued in place the corporate policies and personnel primarily responsible f or the original delay. '".
"35.
List the personnel who are 'primarily responsible for the original delay.'"
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
In addition, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this 132 i
._____________-_-________U
point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication i
that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and
)
functioning properly and.in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are i
supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
See details in CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), 5, 11, 14, 16, 24, 25, and 26.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is' contained in those Responses.
Further, CASE is not at this time (without having completed discovery) made a determination of all such personnel. However, our answer would include all individual who ever testified or tried to give the impression in the operating license proceedings that there were no safety-related problems at Comanche Peak or that, if any problems existed, they were minor and/or had all been corrected; this would include all individuals referenced in answer 1.c.
We have also identified the following specific individuals who fall into this category; we will supplement our answer if and when we develop a more detailed and extensive list:
Peter S. Y. Chang (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages III-5 and -6; IV-1,
-3,
-7,
-10, -11; VII-8; VIII-2 and
-14; X-4; XII-1; XXI-2; XXV-16 and -17; XXVI-10 through -15; XXVII-4 and -19.)
1 133 l
John C. Finneran, Jr. (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages 11-2, -8; III-2,
-3,
-4,
-5, -10, -12; IV-2,
-3,
-7,
-11; V-1 and 2; VII-2; IX-1; X-1; XII-1,.-3,
-4,
-5; XVI-1,
-4, -5; XVIII-2; XXI-2; XXIV-6, -10; XXV-4, -5,
~6; XXVI-2,
-3,
-4,
-5,
-7, -11, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21; XXVII-4, -19, -36.)
Gary Krishnan (See more detEiled discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages III-1, -6; IV-11; IX-1; XVII-3 and -4; XXIV-6 through
-8; XXV-4 and -5,
-12; XXVI-15 through -17; XY,VII-4, -18, -36.)
Roger Reedy (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages 1-2,
-3, -12, -13; 111-1 and -2,
-4, -5; IV-1,
-3,
-4,
-7,
-11, -12; V-9, -10; VII-3,
-4,
-5,
-31, -32, -33, -34; XVI-5, -6; XIX-23, -24, -25; XX-2, XXV-4 through -6,
-12; XXVI-18 through -26; XXVII-4, -17 and -18, -32.)
Kenneth Scheppele (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages IV-11, -12; VI-3 through -7 et seq.; VII-2, -3; VIII-1; XXVI-5 through -7; XXVII-4, -19.)
Michael Vivirito (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: pages 1-2, -4; V-9; XI-1 through -9; XIX-8,
-9,
-11, -12,
-13, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21, -23; XXVII-16, -18, -23 through -29.)
Ronald G. Tolson (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings: page XXVII-43.)
Nicholas S. Reynolds (See more detailed discussion in CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings:
pages VIII-1 and -2; XIX-23; XXV-12; XXVI-20 through -23; XXVII-5.)
See also answer to Interrogatory 1.c) and 1.d), especially 1.c)(4) and 1.d)(4)
Applicants' Interrogatory 36:
"With regard to statement of basis C.1, viz.:
"'The people running the plant now are most of the same persons who made the original decision to ignore the legal requirements for building the plant in order too (sic) build it faster. Applicants' September 16, 1986, Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985).'
134
"36.
Identify each of the person (s) to whom the Consolidated Interveners refer as ' running the plant now' in statement of basis C.1."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are 1
even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the l
Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance l
with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these 1
l l
questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such I
as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following:
Those individuals listed in Applicants' 9/16/86 Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985), and other such supplements We also now add those individuals listed in Applicants' 6/8/87 Supplemental Responses to CASE's 6/?0/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents, supplementary response to interrogatory No. 32, attaching information requested regarding names, etc., of former employees of Gibbs & Hill, ITT Grinnell, NPSI, and Texas Utilities who were rehired by Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation See also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), ang' 35.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants requdst beyond what is contained in the preceding and in those Responses.
135
i i
l Applicants' Interrogatory 37:
l l
"With regard to statement of basis C.1, viz. :
"'The people running the plant now are most of the same persons who made the original decision to ignore the legal requirements for building the plant in order too (sic) build it faster.
Applicants' September 16, 1986, Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, i
1985).'".
"37.
When was the ' original decision' made which the Consolidated Interveners refer to in statement of basis C.1."
Answer:
CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregary (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners' (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 11):
"We do not know."
Applicants' Interrogatory 33:
"With regard to statement of basis C.1, viz.:
"'The people running the plant now are most of the same persons who madejthe original decision to ignore the legal requirements for building the plant in order too (sic) build it faster.
Applicants' September 16, 1986, Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985).'".
"38.
List all ' legal requirements for building the plant' which you contend were ignored."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as calling for a legal opinion.
Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory 136
would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultent -- in this case, their legal consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations.
Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following; we have not yet made a further determination in this regard, and would request a protective order should Applicants seek additional detailed listings.
The Atomic Energy Act, as amended NRC Regulations, including but not limited to:
10 CFR, Part 50, Appendices A and B Commitments made in Applicants' FSAR (those revisions which were in effect at the time)
Industry codes to which Applicants a.re committed (AISC, ASME, etc.)
Applicants' Specification MS-46A and other specifications to which Applicants are committed Those requirements listed in Answer to Interrogatory 14 preceding Applicants' Interrogatory 39:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2, viz.:
137
"' Applicants' redesign, reinspection, and reconstruction program is in fact a continuation of the previous corporate policies which caused the delay.'
"39.
Please describe precisely each and every one of the
' previous corporate policies which caused the delay.'"
l l
l Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad.
In addition, j
the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 11):
" Applicants insisted on finding the shortcuts to building Unit 1 by creating new and hitherto unaccepted theories about the meaning of NRC licensing requirements, industry codes, and plant procedures. Employees who refused to go along with this approach were disciplined, harassed, intimidated and/or fired.
Inexperienced 138
personnel were used extensively to avoid employees who had preexisting knowledge that would conflict with the approach being taken by Applicants.
Warnings from the NRC and independent auditors that Applicants had the wrong attitude and wee (sic -- should be were) following incorrect procedures were ignored." See also previous Responses, especially Answers to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
Applicants' Interrogatory 40:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2, viz.:
"' Applicants' redesign, reinspection, and reconstruction program is in fact a continuation of the previous corporate policies which caused the delay.'".
"40.
Please describe precisely the ' delay' which you contend resulted from such corporate policies."
Answer:
CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 11):
"See Answer to Interrogatory 34."
1 Applicants' Interrogatory 41:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"'The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now cmployed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'
139
I 1
"41.
Please list all ' original judgments' referred to by the
,i I
Consolidated Interveners in statement of basis C.2.a, and identify the personnel who made each such ' original judgment.'"
l Objection-CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad. Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that
{
they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning I
properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to
)
know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, 1
CASE offers the following:
all those judgements which were originally made I
which led to the current deficient, indeterminate, and unlicensable condition of Comanche Peak.
These include, but are not limited to, those judgements made by those individuals identified in Answer to Interrogatories 35 and 36; see also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective j
Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained the preceding and in those Responses.
i 140
l Applicants' Interrogatory 42:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.a. viz.:
"'The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personne', many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, anc rinneran (all now employed at CPSES),. made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'"
"42.
Picase list all the ' deficient conditions' referred to by the Consolidated Interveners in statement of basis C.2.a."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad. Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require i
)
CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The i
fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that 1
they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning I
properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
l Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following:
all those deficient conditions which led to the current indeterminate, and unlicensable condition of Comanche Peak. These include, but are not limited to, those cond1 Lions brought about by those i
141 i
individuals identified in Answer to 1:4terrogatories 35 and 35, and by the less-than-competent personnel utilized by Applicants in the design and construction of Comanche Peak.
See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to, Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list such as Applicants request beyond what is contained the preceding and in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 43:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"'The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy,.and Finneran (all now employed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'"
"43.
Please identify each and every TUEC personnel referred to by the Consolidated Interveners in statement of basis C.2.a."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. i The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are 3
even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these 142 l
questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE ofiers the following. We first note that CASE has not attempted at this time to separate such personnel out as being TUEC personnel as opposed to being personnel who receive their paychecks from some other organization but still are performing work or services fo; the Comanche Peak plant (onsite or offsite).
i Those individuals listed in Applicants' 9/16/86 Supplementation to Answers to the Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories to Applicants (August 27, 1985), and other such supplements We also now add those individuals listed in Applicants' 6/8/87 Supplemental Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents, supplementary response to interrogatory No. 32, attaching information requested regarding names, etc., of forner employees of Gibbs & Hill, ITT Grinnell, NPSI, and Texas Utilities who were rehired by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation See also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), and 35.
CASE has not prepared at this time j
a list such as Applicants request beyond what is specifically stated in our statement quoted by Applicants or is contained in the preceding and in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 44:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"'The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now employed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'"
143
1 i
l l
"44.
Please identify each and every CPRT ' judgment [] on the safety significance of' a deficiency (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan) which the Consolidated Interveners contend was 'made by TUEC personnel.'"
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
First, Applicants' Interrogatory is not worded in a manner consistent with the quoted portion of the statement of basis, which does not include the wording "a deficiency (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan)" (emphasis added) and is therefore confusing and impossible of intelligent answer.
In addition, we note that we have only recently received Revision 4 of the CPRT Plan, and we are not at this point certain exactly what is meant by "a deficiency (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan)."
In any event, CASE's use of the term
" deficiencies" should be considered to be the broader, more common usage (i.e., items which are defective, incomplete, and/or not sufficient in j
quantity, force, strength, etc.).
Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their i
Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/QC program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
144
1 I
I Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. Although we are generally aware of some instances where the individuals referenced are involved in the CPRT activities, CASE needs responses to discovery requests to answer this interrogatory.
See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to l
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list in the form that Applicants have requested beyond what is contained in those Responses.
l Applicants' Interrogatory 45:
j "With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"'The CPRT is not suf ficiently independent f rom TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now employed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'"
l "45.
Please identify each and every CPRT ' judgment [] on the safety significance of' a deviation (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan) which the Consolidated Interveners contend was 'made by TUEC personnel.'"
I l
Obj ection:
CASE objects to this Interrogat ory.
First, Applicants' Interrogatory I
is not worded in a manner consistent with the quoted portion of the statement of basis, which doen not include the wording "a deviation (as defined in the CPRT Program Plan)" and is therefore confusing and impossible 145
of intelligent answer.
In any event, CASE's use of the term
" deficiencies" should be considered to be the broader, more common usage (i.e., items which are defective, incomplete, and/or not sufficient in l
quantity, force, strength, etc.).
Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. Although we are generally aware of some instances where the individuals referenced are involved in the CPRT activities, CASE needs responses to discovery requests to answer this interrogatory.
See CASE's 6/6/87 Respon'se to Applicants' interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective l
Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to j
1 Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list in l
the form that Applicants have requested beyond what is contained in those l
l Responses.
l l
l i
146 l
I I
L
Applicants' Interrogatory 46:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.a, viz.:
"'The CPRT is not sufficiently independent from TUEC since all judgments on the safety significance of deficiencies and disposition of NCRs, design changes, and reconstruction are made by TUEC personnel, many of whom, like Messrs. Tolson, Brandt, Purdy, and Finneran (all now employed at CPSES), made the original judgments that allowed the deficient conditions to exist.'"
"46.
Please define exactly hcw much ' independence' would be
' sufficient' and include in your answer all references which you contend support the requirement for such independence."
Obj ec tion :
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant.
The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the f
Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not know what true independence is (and what the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, especially Criteria I and II, really mean); it further indicates that Applicants still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
CASE's concerns about the lack of sufficient 147 i
w__________
o l
i l
independence have already been discussed at some length in CASE pleadings in the operating license proceedings (see, for example:
CASE's 7/29/85 Initial Response to Applicants' 6/28/85 Current Managernent Views and Management Plan for Resolution of All issues, page 5 continued on top of page 6, last sentence of top paragraph on page 12, middle paragraph on page 16; CASE's First Critique of Applicants' Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Plan,
]
attached to CASE's 8/14/85 letter to the Licensing Board, pages 32 through 34; and CASE's 8/19/85 Offer of Proof of Lack of Independence of Applicants' Latest Plan (CPRT Plan)).
See also CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Responre, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), particularly 1.c)(4), and 1.d),
particularly 1.d)(4).
CASE has not at this time made as precise a determination as Applicants request beyond what is contained the preceding 1
and in those Responses; our response at this time would have to be as stated in the preceding-listed items and by the generic statement that it would take much more independence than has been demonstrated.
With regard to references which support the requirement for such independence, CASE has not yet thoroughly researched such possible requirements. Even without havingdonebo,however,wesupposethatit could be said that the primary requirement which CASE suggests Applicants I
consider is whether or not they want to obtain an operating license, since the Licensing Board has already plainly indicated that independence will go to the weight of any testimony in the operating license proceedings. If Applicants are dumb enough to endanger receiving their operating license by persisting with a program which lacks independence (especially considering 148
the fact that Applicants have it well within their power and authority to do otherwise), CASE supposes that that is a decision for Applicants to make --
and Applicants will eventually have to live with the possible results of l
such decision and possibly pay for it, one way or another (hopefully not at the expense of the public health, safety, or pocketbooks).
Applicants' Interrogator 47:
I' "With regard to statement of-basis C.2.b.,
vic.:
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.'
"47.
Identify which CPRT reinspection you :ontend are being conducted without complying with Appendix B."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations.
Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, 149
l l
2 CASE offers the following. Although we are generally aware of some instances where CPRT activities are going on without complying with Appendix B, we have not made the kind of listing which Applicants request. Further, CASE needs responses to discovery requests to answer this interrogatory.
l See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c) and 1.d).
CASE has not prepared at this time a list in the form that Applicants have requested beyond what is contained in those Responses.
Applicants' Interrogatory 48:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.b., viz.:
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying I
with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.'".
"48.
Do you contend that any of these CPRT reinspection are required to comply with Appendix B?"
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory as calling for a legal op_nion and requests a protective order.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following: Yes.
Applicants' Interrogatory 49:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.b., viz.:
i 150 1
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.'".
"49.
Please explain, with adequate citation or references, the basis of your contention."
Objection and Answer:
CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 14):
" Objection.
Seeks a legal conclusion.
Protective Order requested."
Applicants' 7 interrogatory 50:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.b., viz.:
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.'".
"50.
Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Interveners contend th>t CPRT reinspection are impossible of trending."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE tc again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to thase l
151
)
l l
i 1
i questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such 1
as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
~
i Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE of fers the following.
The answer is contained in the portion quoted by l
Applicants; i.e.,
bece.use CPRT reinspection are being conducted without i
l l
complying with Appendix B.
CASE has at this time performed no further analysis, and we need responses to discovery requests in order to provide a more complete response. Further, Applicants have offered nothing to indicate to the contrary.
l l
Apolicants' Interrogator 51:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.b., viz. :
1
{
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible.'".
"51.
Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Interveners contend that CPRT reinspection are inpossible of documentation."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as l
l Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the i
Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have l
their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these 152 i
questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
The answer is contained in the portion quoted by Applicants; i.e.,
because CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B.
CASE has at this time performed no further analysis, and we need responses to discovery requests in order to provide a more complete response. Further, Applicants have offered nothing to indicate to the contrary.
Applicants' Interrogatory 52:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.b.,
viz.:
"'CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B, thus making trending, documentation, and any verification of the work performed impossible. '".
"52.
Please state each and every reason why the Consolidated Interveners contend that CPRT reinspection are impossible of verification."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance 153
with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
l Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following. The answer is contained in the portion quoted by Applicants; i.e.,
because CPRT reinspection are being conducted without complying with Appendix B.
CASE has at this time performed no further analysis, and we need responses to discovery requests in order to provide a more complete response.
Further, Applicants have offered nothing to indicate to the contrary.
Applicants' Interrogator 53:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.e, viz.:
l
"'The work that Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction permit represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended.
No such amendment has been sought or received.
This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations has caused many problems, including a construction work halt to await staff approval of the proposed extension of the cons.truction permit, which Applicants had allowed to expire without seeking a renewal.'
"53.
Please specify the precise manner each respect in which the Consolidated Interveners contend in which 'the work that the Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction i
l permit' is contended to ' represent major changes in the original l
proposed construction and design,' including in your answer the exact proposed work which is the basis of this contention and the nource and content of the 'criginal proposed construction and l
design' from which it is alleged to deviate."
154 1
a_________-__-_-________--__--.
Obj ec t'_ on :
CASE objects to this Interrogatory.
First, the question is not too clear, although we believe we understand the thrust of it.
Further, the manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their QA/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions themselves, and should have thoroughly 1
investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic l
l implications analysis.
Answer:
l Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
See CASE's 6/6/87 Response to Applicants' l
Interrogatories to " Consolidated interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order and this 7/6/87 Supplementary Response, especially responses to Interrogatories 1.c), 1.d), and 16.
CASE has not prepared at this time a list in the form that Applicants have requested beyond what is contained in those Responses, and we need responses to discovery requests to be able to more fully respond.
Applicants' Interrogatory 54:
l "With regard to statement of basis C.2.e, viz.:
"'The work that Applicants propose to conduct under the 155 L
extended construction permit represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended. No such amendment has been sought or received.
This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations has caused many problems, including a construction work halt to await staff approval of the proposed extension of the construction permit, which Applicants had allowed to expire without seeking a renewal.'".
"54.
Please specify the ' law' which supports your contention 1
that the proposed work 'cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended.'"
I Objection and Answer:
)
.i CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated 1
Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page I
15):
"Obj e c tion.
Seeks a legal conclusion, protective Order requested."
Applicants' Interrogatory 55:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.e, viz.:
"'The work that Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction permit represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended.
No such amendment has been sought or received.
This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations has caused many problems, including a construction work halt to await staff approval of the proposed extension of the construction permit, which Applicants had allowed to expire without seeking a renewal.'"..
"55.
please specify the precise ' policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations' to which you refer, and:
"a)
Identify the person (s) who f ormulated or promulgated this policy.
156
l "b)
Specify, with as much precision as possible, the date(s) i upon which this ' policy' was formulated or promulgated.
1 "c)
Specify when this policy was first implemented or made
]
manifest?
"d)
Describe how ' policy' was implemented?"
i Answer:
The precise " policy of ignoring ti.e procedural requirements of the NRC regulations" to which we referred was the fact that Applicants continued construction of Comanche Peak for. several months without having a valid construction permit, after their construction permit had expired (although we could also discuss, and have at some length in our 6/6/67 and this 7/6/87 Responses, many other instances of a policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of the NRC regulations).
55.a)
CASE does not yet know the answcr to this Interrogatory.
55.b)
CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
)
l 55.c)
CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
55.d)
CASE does not yet know the answer to this Interrogatory.
i l
l Applicants' Interrogatory 56:
"With regard to statement of basis C.2.e, viz.:
"'The work that Applicants propose to conduct under the extended construction permit represents major changes in the original proposed construction and design and cannot be lawfully undertaken unless the construction permit is amended. No such amendment has been sought or received.
This policy of ignoring the procedural requirements of 157
i the NRC regulations has caused many problems, including a construction work halt to await staff approval of the proposed extension of the construction permit, which Applicants had allowed to expire without seeking a renewal.'".
"56.
please list each and every one of the 'many problems' which you contend were caused by this policy."
Objection:
CASE objects to this Interrogatory. The manner in which Applicants have phrased their Interrogatory would require CASE to again act as Applicants' unpaid (and unthanked) consultant. The fact that Applicants are even asking questions such as these at this point in the history of the Comanche Peak plant is itself a clear indication that they still do not have their 0A/0C program under control and functioning properly and in accordance with NRC regulations. Applicants are supposed to know the answer to these questions theiaselves, and should have thoroughly investigated matters such as these as part of their root cause/ generic implications analysis.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
In addition to the problems specifically mentioned in the portion quoted by Applicants, one of the primary problems is'that Applicants now have placed themselves in the position of having to contend with a separate docketed proceeding on the construction permit amendment, with all of its attendant potential problems (including receiving I
responses such as this).
Applicants have also embarrassed themselves in I
front of the whole world, including in front of those individuals upon whose recommendation and/or decision rests whether or not Comanche Peak will l
158 j
l I
(
receive an operating license.
And obviously (although the relevance of these matters is not entirely
)
l clear in the context of these proceedings or the operating license proceedings, it cannot have escaped Applicants' notice) there is the fact that Applicants have, in effect, taken out a gun, loaded it, cocked the hammer, aimed it at themselves, then hande.i it to the minority owners for
\\
use in the lawsuit currently pending between TU Electric and the three minority owners of Comanche Peak. And equally obvious (and'the relevance of which is not entirely clear in this context) are the potential implications for future rate hearings. We want to point out that these matters were not raised by CASE in these proceedings, and we mention them here only for completeness of our answers to questions which Applicants themselves have asked, since CASE does consider these to be among the many problems caused by Applicants' policy.
Applicants' Interrogatory 57:
"With regard to statement of basis D:
"57.
Please identify the precise basis for your contention that the Applicants must ' adopt and implement a redesign, reinspection and reconstruction program that contains at least
[the elements listed in D.1-7]', including in your answer the legal source of the requirement for each such element."
Objection and Answer:
CASE is in general agreement with the answer by Meddie Gregory (6/15/87 Meddie Gregory's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order, at page 16):
" Objection.
Seeks a legal conclusion. Protective Order requested."
159
i i
I l
Applicants' Interrogatory 58:
"With regard to expert testimony:
I "58.
Do the Consolidated Interveners intend to offer the testimony of an expert witness in support of their contentions?
If so, please state, for each such witness:
"a.
The identity of the witness; "b.
The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify; "c.
The substance or each fact to which the witness is expected to testify; "d.
The substance of each opinion to which the witness is expected to testify; and j
i "e.
A summary of the grounds for each such opinion."
l Objection:
CASE objects to this interrogatory as being premature and unanswerable at the present time.
Answer:
Without waiving our objection, but rather expressly relying upon same, CASE offers the following.
CASE has not yet decided which, if any, expert witnesses we will call in support of our contentions. We will advise the Board and all parties at the time such decision has been made and on the schedule decided upon by the Board at that time.
There is the possibility that CASE may rely on the testimony, depositions, and/or affidavits of some or all of the individuals who have already testified or given depositions and/or affidavits in the operating license proceedings, as well as in Department of Labor (DOL) cases; we may 160 1
\\
C______________________________________________________
j
also rely on testiraony of past and/or future whistleblowers, as well as possibic other future witnesses.
Respectfully submitted, j
A-
' /. M -??-, v Y ]; Y l O Afirs.) Juanita Ellis, President
+/ CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 161
STATE OF TEXAS )
Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),
and knows the contents of the foregoing docuntent:
CASE's 7/6/87 Supplementary Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No.1987-1) and flotion for a Protective i
Order.(mailed July 8, 1987) and that the same is true and correct to the best of her i:nowledge and belief.
D Nd=
L !Ny
/(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President
'tASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 9 SWORN T0 and Subscribed before ne on this 7 day of July
, 19 87 (lhe (h -: (L W y
~
Notary Public My Commission Expires:
//' b - 99 (SEAL) i The original of this page is being mailed under separate cover, First Class Mail, to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section.
C A S E==
214/9L6-9W+6 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
July 8, 1987 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shington, D. C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Subj ect:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al,.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Application for Construction Permit Docket No. 50-445-CPA CASE's 7/6/87 Supplementary Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to
" Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order We are attaching hereto the signed and notarized affidavit of CASE President Mrs. Juanita Ellis, which was attached to the subject filing.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
)
./
A
- &Af M $$2N Nrs. ) Juanita Ellis
-fresident cc:
Service List Attaennent
CASE MH E T 6'77
~
CASE ATTACHMENT E PETER S.J. CHANG DEPOSITION 8/21/82 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
N U CLEA R RE GU LATORY CO M MIS SION 3
4 BE FORE THE AT OMIC S A'FETY AN D LIC E NSING BOA R D 5
6 IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS X DOCKET N OS. 50-445 UTILITIES GENERATING a nd 5 0-4 4 6 7
COMPANY, et al 1
8 (C O MA N CH E PEAK STE AM X
(A p plica tion f or ELE CTRIC STATION,
O perating Licens e) 8 UNITS 1 and 2)
X 10 11 l
l 12 ORA L DE POSITION OF PETER S. Y.
CHANG 13 o
14 15 A NSWERS AND DE POSITION of' PETER 16 S.Y.
CHANG, a witne s s produced on behalf of CASE, 17 ta ken in the above styled a nd nu mbered matter, on 18 th e 21st da y of A ugust, 1982 be f ore Ga ylia Jorda n, a 19 Certified Shortha nd Re porter in a nd f or the State of 20 Texas, at the of fic e s of Cou rt Re port ers A s s ocia te n,
21 3 616 Ma ple, loca te d in th e City of Dalla s, County of 22 Dalla s a nd State of Texa s pu rsua nt to 10 CFR 2. 72 0 (a )
23 24 1
(
{i 25 s
~
12 1
Q What is your current title ?
2 A
Chief Engineer, Pipe S u p port Engineer-4 3
ing.
4 Q
Who do you re p ort to ?
5 A
John Fin nera n.
i 6
Q You 're cla s sified as a Chief Engineer 7
Pipe S u p port E nginee ring ?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
How long have you held that po sition ?
10 A
Since la st September.
11 Q
W ha t are your curre nt re s pon sibilitie s i 12 A
What is a ddre s s e d in prof e s sional 13 q u a lific a tion s, last it e m.
14 Q
W ould you ple a s e go in more d e t a il ?
15 A
I'm responsible for on-site 's m a l l 16 b ore ASME pipe stre s s analysis, ASME, there's a j
17 typo there N F, p i p e s u p p ort design a nd, field 18 m o d i fi c a t i on coordination.
19 Q
Are you in c ha rge of lar g e bore pipin g "
20 A
No.
21 Q
Are you in c ha rg e of Grinnell d e sig ns 7 j
M A
No.
23 Q
Are you in c ha rg e of NPSI de signs ?
24 A
ya,
.I 25 Q
A re you f a milia r with the NPSI criteria l
i
__o
o
?'
I 38 1
A C o u ld be, I know there is some but i
2 I don't know where it is.
3 Q
Did you have one a valla ble in your
)
4 w or k area ?
1
)
5 A
No, it's n ot re q uire d.
j 6
Q Do you feel that any access to the 7
FSAR is a necessary re quire m ent for the ba sis of 8
e ng in e e rin g calculations on pipe su p port s 7 9
A FSAR re quire me nt relate to each 1
10 d is cipline, is s pe cific ally to cla rif y the design 11 s pe cifica tion so as long as FSAR is a vaila ble to 12 us, we don't need to hold our personal copy.
13 Q
There is nothing in the FSAR w it h t
14 regards to pipe su p port s ?
i 15 A
I don't know.
16 Q
Where are the N C R 's kept at
,17 Comanche Peak?
18 A
You taiking about blank f ctm ?
19 Q
Yes.
2 A
I don't know.
21 Q
Who is Mr. Fra n ku m and what is his j
22 position ?
i 23 A
He's the Proj e ct Construction Ma na ger 24 for Brown & Ro ot.
25 Q
Have you pe rs ona ll y or to your know-I
l 1
39 j
1 ledge has any member of your group ever turned 2
in an NCR?
i 3
A No.
4 Q
Do you know of a nyone in the Large 5
Bore Group that has ever turned in an NCR?
6 A
N ot to my k no wledg e.
7 Q
Has anyone underneath you ever come 8
to you sa yin g they would like to write an NCR?
9 A
They come to me a ll the time for 10 technical qu e stion s,
coding t e m pta tion s but never 11 mentioned a bout need to write NCR.
12 Q
Is it a common practice to include 13 a ll e n viro nm e nta l conditions in the analysis of 14 a
pipe su p port ?
15 A
Not n e c e s s a rily.
i 16 Q
Why not ?
l 17 A
E n viro n m e nta l conditions s om e tim e s
)
l 18 s pe cial for m a t e ria l sele etion only.
1 19 Q
Which e n viro nm e nta l c o ndition s are 2
normally included in a pipe su p port ?
I l
21 A
Ycu talking about analysis, design?
22 Q
(N o d s-head up and d ow n. )
23 A
We consider e n viro n m e nt c o n d it io n s l
24 for selecting a ll of the m a t e ria ls.
l M
Q Which ones are in clu d e d in the design l
l l
l l
l
.b
6 4,
CASE ATTACHMENT F
{
7
}
lllllllllll =
Log ~# TXX-6508 Fi1e # 10110
~":
917
=
=
Ref # 10CFR50.55(e)
TUELECTRIC l
June 9, 1987 wmiam c. counsa Executwe W 2 Presukat U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
DOCKETS NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 CONTROL OF DESIGN MODIFICATIONS SDAR:
CP-87-10 (INTERIM REPORT)
Gentlemen:
On May 11, 1987, we verbally notified your Mr. I. Barnes of a deficiency involving design change document control measures which may not have been adequately established prior to the implementation of the current design modification program.
This is an interim report of a potentially reportable item under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
The scope of this issue affects only Unit 1 Design Modifications issued for systems / subsystems previously turned over to and accepted by CPSES Operations.
The evaluation of this issue with regard to the safety of plant operations has been incorporated into the Corrective Action Program, specifically the Stone and Webster Corrective Action Project.
This evaluation is scheduled for completion by July 30, 1987.
We will submit our next report on this issue no later than August 28, 1987.
Very truly yours, i%3(
W. G. Counsil l
DAR/gj c - R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (3)
M North O!rve Sunt LB 81 Dallas, Texas 73:01
)
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 l
1 l
i i
un,a -
i I
'o...
'87 JUL 10 P12:35 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (rj,
vvC' 8
l 3
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
}{
}{
Docket No. 50-445-CPA TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
j COMPANY, et s1.
}{
(Application for a (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Construction Permi t)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true an correct copies of CASE's 7/6/87 Supplementary Response to Acolicants' Interrogatories to " Consolidated Interveners" (Set No. 1987-1) and Motion for a Protective Order have been sent to the names listed below this 8th day of July
,198,7,
by:
Federal Express where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere. _
i Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 225 Franklin Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive ~ Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission 1107 West Rnapp Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 1
l 1
I Chai rman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building l
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV 1401 New York Ave.,
N.W., Suite 600 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20005 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderman Lanny A.
Sinkin Staff Engineer Christ'.c Institute Advisory Committee for Keactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C.
20002 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil, Vice President 6 Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esc.
Spiegel 6 McDiarmid Docketing and Service Section 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
(3 copies)
Washington, D. C.
20005-4798 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C.
20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services
{
Ms. Billie P. Garde 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Government Accountability Project Walnut Creek, Calif ornia 94596 Midwest Office 104 E. Wisconsin - B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897 l
Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Mr. Christopher I. Grimes, Director Heron, Burchette, Ruckert 6 Rothwell I
Comanche Peak Project Division 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
Office of Special Projects Suite 700 Mail Stop EWW 302 Washington, D. C.
20007 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
_jnd 0 A '. I (s.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
_