. - _

f

.f.

IWJED CORPISPONDENCE

l'

'

.

SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE'1800 M STREET. N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036

reAMSAY D. POTTS STEVEN M LUCAS 12O21 822 1000STEUART L PtTTMAN DAvio M. RuaENS'EINGEORGE F. TROweR10GE MATIAS F TRAviESO-DiA2STEPMEN O POTTS VICTORI A J. PERMrwS . TELECOPf ERCZE;ALO CMARNOFF JOMN M. O NEILL JR -

. OTHY MAN N RAN L LLENCEORGE M. ROGERS. JR- TIMOTHY B McT4sDEF#.ED A. LITTLE ELISAGETH M PENDLETON-JOMN s RMINELANDER PAUL A. MAPLAN TELEXERUCE w CMVRCMILL MARRYM GLASSPICOCb (\ 89-2693 SMawL tw WSMILESLIE A. N4CHOLSON. JR - RANDAL B MELL #MARTIN O, MRALL THOMAS H McCORMICM C A BLE "SH AWL Aw"RICMARQ J, MENDALL wlLLIAM P SARR _)_JAv E. SiLeERG SUSAN M. rREuND y jr

N"UG7V ALYEN J UC W -

WRITER'S D4 RECT DIAL NUMSER" ' "" '"'

O LPJ M A1 V, FRED DRASNER ROBERT M GORDON Y O o q~1VJVuog

d" " Q &it. MENLY WES$7ER SA.38AR A J MORGEN f,NATMANIEL P BREED. JR SONNIE S. GOTTLIES eJ*MAE/M AWGENSLICM MOwal%3 M SM AF F E RM ANERNEST L. SLAME. JR DE50 RAMS SAUSER

' ,= h g-

CAf;LETON S JONES SCOTT A ANENSERG -

#THOM AS A. WANTER SETH H HOOGAS AN g${'] %,

$ OHice tJAMES M ouRGER S,*EiLA E McCArrERTv - %*gg $ bObswSMELOON J. WEISEL DELISSA A R'DGwAY

JodN A MCCULLOUGM MENNETM J MAUTMAN * *

J PAfstCM McCMEv DAv1O LAWRENCE MILLER 60 % *

GEORGE P MsCMAELY. JR ANNE M MRAuSMOPF gJAMES TMOMAS LENHART FREDER'CM L. MLEIN w-

; 4STEVEN L. MELTZLR GORDON R MANOFSMYDEAN O AULICM SALLY C. ANDREwS D: t

JOHN ENGEL JEFFREY S GIANCOLASTEPMEN 9 MUTTLER MANN AM E. M LIE B E RM ANwsNTMROP N grown SANCR A E. FOLSOMJAMESB MAMLIN MARCIA R N:R E N ST E t NROTERT E ZAMLER JUOtTM A MANDLER

E"ER7 ."#C a'e'"NS Uw"fS'O ^ *"'d'm October 20, 1981^" 'OuN

Kennet h M. Ctackes, Esquire BY EXPRESS MAIL

N} m ' 'Chackes and Hoare .'314 N. B2.c.awaySt. Louis, Missouri 63102 S

|

In the Matter of'Union Electric Company b IS 7 gI*

8'8"cury $$|?D(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) ~

#"* 'tDocket No. STN 50-483 OL y'

.xdVDear Mr. Chackes:

(q/b b_l {yte

Your letter of October 13, 1981, seeks a prompt replyto requests for the production of additional documents and inter-rogatory answers, and requests that we consider a revision ofthe schedule for the litigation of Joint Intervenors' Conten-tion No. 1. I responded, in part, to your letter by telegram(attached) on October 19, 1981. For the reasons stated below,Applicant will not agree to a revision in the schedule or toprovide responses to additional discovery requests, with excep-tions I will identify.

I. DISCOVERY

The Special Prehearing Conference Order issued by theAtomic Safety and Licensing Board on April 21, 1981, establishedthe following schedule for the conduct of discovery in thisproceeding: 03

1

8110280058 811020?PDR ADOCK 05000483 / fC PDR

_ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-.

. SHAN, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Two

1. Discovery commences. Issuance of this Order.

2. Last day for filing of first-round May 26, 1981.discovery requests.

3. Last day for filing responses to July 10, 1981.first-round discovery requests.

4. Last day for filing of second- August 10, 1981.round discovery requests.

5. Last day for filing responses to September 10, 1981.second-round discovery requests.

Except for the filing of late interrogatory answers and the lateproduction of documents by Joint Intervenors, the parties generallyhave adhered to this schedule.

The Licensing Board's Order further provided that:

Additional discovery requests to those per-mitted by the above schedule can only be filedwith the Board's permission and must be based oninformation that could not, with diligence, beknown at the time authorized for discovery.Such requests must be filed within thirty (30)days after it became or should have becomeknown.

Applicant believes that the opportunities for discoveryprovided by the Licensing Board's Order were reasonable and morethan adequate to enable Joint Intervenors to prepare for trial(i.e., to cross-examine) on their own contentions. The overalltimc period (five months) was adequate, and an unlimited secondround provided the opportunity not only for follow-up requestsbut for the initiation of inquiries which had been overlookedin the first round. Applicant's Answer in Opposition to JointIntervenors' Motion to Compel, dated October 13, 1981, outlinesthe scope of the discovery effort which has been required inorder to meet Joint Intervenors' requests. I am informed, forexample, that 2,140 pages of Applicant documents have beenreproduced for Joint Intervenors. That figure does not beginto represent the volume of materials which have been producedfor inspection and which Joint Intervenors have chosen not tocopy. In these circumstances, discovery requests filed outsidethe time period prescribed by the Licensing Board's Order mustbe regarded as prima facie unreasonable. See Commonwealth EdisonCompany (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 A.E.C. 457,

463 (1974).

_ _ _ _ _ .

,

.

. SHAN, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

Kenneth1M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Three

I appreciate the fact you were attempting, by yourletter, to solicit our voluntary agreement with these requestsin the hope of avoiding the Licensing Board's involvement ina potentially uncontested matter. In the past we have oftenbeen able to reach an accommodation. The timing and scopeof the additional discovery requests contained in your letterof October 13, however, convince me that Joint Intervenorsare unwilling to conclude the discovery process voluntarilyand now seek to disrupt the orderly progress of the proceeding.

You-provide no explanation of why Joint Intervenorshave waited until so long after Applicant's second-round dis-covery responses were made available (September 10, 1981) toseek additional information. Except for an introductoryparagraph which purports to justify the first 11 of the 24new document production requests, you provide no explanationas to why Joint Intervenors require such information in orderto prepare for trial. I will not ask my client -- in theabsence of any effort on the part of Joint Intervenors tojustify these extraordinary requests, and in view of theextensive discovery which already has taken place -- toundertake the additional burden and expense of respondingto what appears to be an endless train of discovery requests.Further, you must be aware that the burden involved is sub-stantially heightened ay the fact that Applicant and its counselare busy with the effort to repare direct testimony, due tobe filed on November 6, in response to Joint Intervenors'allegations.

While I am generally without the benefit of anyexplanation of the new discovery requests, I would like toprovide you with some further information in connection withApplicant's position.

~

A. New Document Production Requests on Embedded Plates

New document production requests 1 through 11 aresaid to relate to Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory No. 8(c)(First Set), parts (i) and (iii) of which asked Applicantto enumerate the number of manually welded embeds repairedon site and the number of mechanically welded embeds repairedon site. While Applicant initially objected to these partsof the interrogatory, I advised you by letter of August 26,1981, that available documents do not provide the informationrequested, so that the answer to those parts of the interroga-tory is that Applicant does not know.

__ _ _ , _ . - _.

-.

. SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Four

Your letter states that requests 1 to 11 represent"a continuing effort to obtain the answer to" this interrogatory.Joint Intervenors ignore the fact that they have received ananswer to the interrogatory which is both responsive andtruthful -- Applicant does not know. Consequently, there isno basis for the attempted justification of these eleven newdocument production requests, filed seven weeks after theinterrogatory was answered. I would also observe that Appli-cant does not consider the -number of embedded plates repairedon site to Le even remotely material.to the defense we intendto present in responsive testimony.

Further, it is apparent from even a casual readingof these requests that they will not reveal the number of platesrepaired on site. See, for example, request no. 9, which seeksa quality control procedure. In addition, as explained below,our research shows that Joint Intervenors could have requestedthese documents much earlier.

No. 1. Please note that SL:195 was produced forinspection by Joint Intervenors during the first round ofdiscovery (i.e. , shortly after July 10, 1981). There isno excuse for seeking further discovery now with respectto a document which has been available to Joint Intervenorssince well before the second round requests were filed.Further, I should note that SL:128 (July 14, 1977), an_ attach-ment to BLSM-6708 (January 16, 1978), produced in responseto Document Request No. 10 (First Set) , provides details ofthe Cives inspection and includes data sheets on the numbersof stud defects and failures.

No. 2. NCR-2-0831-C-B was produced in response toDocument Request No. 8 (First Set) .

Nos. 3, 4. DLUC-2399 was produced in response toDocument Request No. 5 (First Set). The attachments toDLUC-2399, produced for inspection by Joint Intervenorsshortly after July 10, 1981, included- 610 pages of surveil-lance reports and supporting sketches from Daniel QA RecordFile N11.02. That. file, which Joint Intervenors now request.

in toto, contains information on all vendors, and over 1200pages with respect to Cives Steel Company alone. This is apatently untimely and unreasonable request.

No. 5. QM-48 was referenced in DLUC-5865 (October 16,1980), which was produced in response to Document Request No. 10(First Set) .

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

. .

..

* SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

.Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Five

No. 7. BLSM-3284 does not address Cives, and hasnothing to do with embed repairs or rework.

No. 8. SLBM:6-514 was produced in response toDocument Request No. 10 (First Set).

No. 9. Revision 6 of Quality Control Procedure 507was produced in response to Document Request No.12 (First Set) .

No. 10. Because SLBM:6-514 apparently contained anincorrect NCR reference, I have asked Union Electric Companyto search for an NCR dated October 25, 1976. Enclosed isa copy of NCR-2-Oll7-C-A, which as you can see deals withCives-manufactured connection bars for a door frame.

No. 11. SLM 7-70 is updated by SLM 7-78, which hasalready been produced. It is not specific to Cives and hasno information on embed repairs.

'

B. New Document Requests on Honeycombingin the Reactor Building Base Mat

No general or specific justification or explanationis provided in your letter for the new and untimely documentproduction requects on honeycombing in the reactor building

j base mat.

No. 12. Joint Intervenors' Document Request No. 24(Second Set) asked only for quality control surveillancereports, and not for the additional materials sought in thisnew request. Joint Intervenors were made aware of concrete

.

placing reports by Quality Control Procedure 109, producedi in response to Document Request No. 20 (First Set), and by a

blank report form which was produced in response to DocumentRequest No. 19 (First Set).

No. 13. NCR-2-0653-C-A was produced in response toDocument Request No. 26 (First Set). Please note, however,that Joint Intervenors' representatives did not request thatthe entire document be reproduced, and thereafter sought theremainder of the NCR in Document Request No. 47 (Second Set).

No. 14. BLSE-4472 was produced in response toDocument Request No. 26 (First Set), as an attachment toNCR-2-0653-C-A.

.

-.

SHAN, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Six

No. 15. NCR-2-0856-C-A, with attached sketchesof honeycomb areas and locations, has already been producedas a part of Attachment B to the September 27, 1977 UnionElectric Company Final Report, Concrete Voids in ReactorBuilding Base Mat, in response to Document Request No. 32(First Set).

Nos. 16, 17. Applicant has no knowledge of theexistence of any such maps.

C. New Document Requests on Piping

No general or specific justification or explanationis provided in your letter for the new and untimely documentproduction requests on the piping allegations.

Nos. 19, 20. AP-VI-02 rev. 8 (2/13/81) and interimchange (6/18/81) were produced in response to Document Produc-tion Request No. 25 (First Set) .

No. 22. Please find enclosed an unmarked copy ofthe requested page. The three words "The Originating personnel"had been highlighted on the original from which the copy producedwas made. I trust this delay has not unduly impeded Joint Inter-venors' preparation for cross-examination.

No. 24. Joint Intervenors repeatedly cited IEReport 81-04 in their answers to the first round interroga-tories, and obviously were in possession of the report priorto July 10, 1981, and the filing of second round requestson August 10, 1981.

D. Interrogatories 24 (b, c and d) (Second Set)

Applicant stands by its answers to the subjectinterrogatories as responsive and made in good faith to theinterrogatories as written. The question posed in yourletter ("whether the persons conducting the test considerCLP evidence of defective material or weld") had not beenasked in the interrogat ary. Further, I should note thatthe time has long since expired for filing a motion tocompel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f), with respectto these answers.

.

. SHA% PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWDRIDGE

Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Seven

II. REVISION TO CURRENT SCHEDULE

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's SpecialPrehearing Conference Order of April 21, 1981, establishedthe following schedule with respect to a hearing on theso-called construction defects contentions (Joint Intervenors'Contention No. 1):

6. Filing of direct, written October 1, 1981.testimony on Joint Inter-venors' construction defectscontentions.

7. Prehearing Conference under October 15, 1981.10 CFR 2.752.

8. Hearing commences on con- November 4, 1981.struction defects contentions.

By letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarddated September 11, 1981, Mr. Lessy, counsel for the NRC Staff,reported on the successful resolution of certain discovery-related disputes between Joint Intervenors and the Staff,and between Joint Intervenors and Applicant. Mr. Lessy alsoreported that these parties had agreed to modify certain aspectsof the above schedule in order to provide for motions for sum-mary disposition. He reported, however, that Joint Intervenorshad not agreed to the date of November 17, proposed by Applicantand the Staff, for the start of the hearing on Joint Intervenors'construction defects contentions.

By letter to the Licensing Board of September 17,1981, you stated that "Mr. Lessy's letter [of September 11,1981] accurately reports the areas of agreement regardingthe proceedings in this matter." You further stated "I amalso pleased to report that Joint Intervenors no longer dis-agree with the date proposed by the Applicant and Staff forcommencement of the hearing; November 17, 1981." Discoveryhad been concluded at the time you wrote this letter. OnSeptember 24, 1981, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandumand Order (Modification of Hearing Schedule) establishingNovember 17 as the commencement date for the hearing.

Twenty-six days after your letter of agreement, onOctober 13, 1981, you wrote a letter to me proposing that thehearing commence the week of January 4, 1982 -- a seven-weekdelay. You suggest a revision, as well, to the schedule for

. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ -- _ - ____ -. - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - - - _ _

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

-.

SHAW, PITTMAN,' POTTS & TROWBRIDGE-

Kenneth M. Chackes, Esquire-October 20, 1981

'

Page Eight

; (a) the filing of Joint Intervenors' answers to summary dis-position motions, even though no new information is soughtas to concrete cracks or concrete? cover requirements (the

' subjects of_ motions) .and much_of the information sought,inyour letter is . irrelevant to the motions filed' (only theStaff moved on embedded plates; no motions have been filedwithcrespect to honeycombing in the reactor building basemat; of the piping issues only SA-358 piping is the subjectof motions); (b) the prehearing conference, which is scheauled.for this Monday, October 26; and (c) the filing of testimony,

and exhibits..

!

j I am amazed at this proposal, which literally fallson the heels of Joint Intervenors' agreement to the currentschedule. Joint Intervenors have been aware of the general

! schedule for hearing their construction defects contentionsi _ since the special prehearing conference of March 24, 1981.

There has been ample time'to prepare cross-examination.

Delay in the hearing on the construction; defectscontentions would also delay the litigation of Joint Inter-venors' environmental contentions on radiological effluents.

,

; Now that the'NRC Staff's safety. evaluation report and draftenvironmental impact statement have been issued, there-isevery reason to believe that those contentions could be. heardon schedule.

As noted in your letter, the plant will be completed-eight months later than previously had been estimated. Thatdevelopment alone is no reason for disruptive, last-minute. delays in this hearing. The allegations to be heard' relate

,

to events which are historical -- dating back to the-1976-78time frame. Furthermore, based upon your. agreement to the

,

i current' schedule, complicated arrangements have been madei to schedule the appearance of witnesses'to testify in

answer-to Joint Intervenors' contentions.,

The only explanation provided,.in your letter, for- a schedule ' change is that "[i] t is . highly unlikely, due inlarge part'to our need for the additional materials set out;

i above, in my previous ~ correspondence and our motion to compel,| that we will be able to comply'with the current schedule."i'

With respect to the additional materials requested,I have explained that in some cases it has already been pro-vided, in most cases Joint Intervenors should have sought the

:

i-1 '

- . , . + . . , . .-. -,,.. _u.- _. -a.-.-.a_.-,,-,,-,__ ,--.-,,,.-.;--.

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

..

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE-

Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireOctober 20, 1981Page Nine

material in the second round of discovery, and in all casesit cannot be viewed to be critical to'your preparation forcross-examination given the vast quantity of informationalready provided by Applicant.

With respect to information requested in yourprevious correspondence, please see Mr. Galen's responseof October 14, 1981, providing a copy of the materialsrequested. I feel you should know that while your lettersof September 10 and 28, 1981, indicate that Applicant failedto provide relevant appendices and attachments to requesteddccuments, in fact Applicant had produced these appendicesand attachments for inspection and Joint Intervenors'representatives simply did not identify them for reproduction.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant wouldoppose any suggested revision to the current schedule.

If you would like to discuss any of these mattersprior to the prehearing conference on Monday, please feelfree to telephone. I will be in Union Electric offices allday on Friday, October 23. Sunday evening, October 25, I willbe staying at the Marriott (421-1776).

Sincerely,

_ _,$,.---

Thomas A. BaxterCounsel for Applicant

TAB:jah

Enclosures

cc: per Certificate of Service

~ ,

w___-_._ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ______.._________________.______._.._________.__.___.____________m_._ _ _ _ _ _ . _

,

.,2. _ . . . _ .

'f

.'

, 7 .:* . . / / L.

7 -, ,

-

-. ~,

*

/

'l. er - -,

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ ,i

In the Matter of ))

'

,'

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket,No. STN 50-483 OL, -, ,, > /), .

i! ;~

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) / ) C *

j ,,

?-

,

,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ',,,. , ,

', r,.I hereby certify that' copies of the foregoing letter

~

to Kennech M. Chackes, with attachments, were served this

20th day of October,1981 by deposit in the U.S. mail, first,

class, postage prepaid, to the parties identified'on the(!t

attached Service List. .;

;.

-_ /

/4 .s

' A

/. .

i ,.'

,

Thomas A. Baxter. -

,,,

| '

s'f s

/ 'f /

// . <

f

f*- >,

< ,/ ,s

",

, ,-.

s| &pr/,

^'.,

>

a

| i, ..

"- .. ,

S '

J j f

~7

Y & $'

' /

_t-

*'

.

''r

*

+

> UA e ,

, , - ~

!

, .-*

,.

'|. p f N~-

%,..e..-.,, , - ,-. . . - _ . _ , . - . . . ..#__ _ ,

.y

.;...

".$"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, , g

.c

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD,

In the Matter of .- ))

UNION ELECTRIC CC11PANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483 OL)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

SERVICE LIST

1-

James P. Gleason, Escp. tire Kenneth M. Chackes, EsquireCM man Chackes and Ibare.

Atomic Safety and Licering Board 314 N. Broadway513 Gilmoure Drive St. Icu s, Missouri 63102iiSilver Spring, Maryla'nd 20901'

,-

Mr. John G. Reed.<,

s Mr. Glenn O. Bright Poute 1-

''Atomic Safety and Licensing Kingdom City, Missouri 65262,

Board PanelU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrission Mr. Howani SteffenWasha.ngton, D.C. 20555 Charcis, Missouri 65024

-

, Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Farold Iottrann''Atomic Safety and Licensing Poute 1'

Board Panel Owensv2.lle, Missouri 65066U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ComnissionWashington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Earl Brcwn

P.O. Box 146,

Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Auxvasse, Missouri 65231Office of the Executive legal Director

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccrtrissian Mr. Fred LuekeyWashington, D.C. 20555 Rural Route

Rhineland, Missouri 65069Docketi:1g and Service Section

! Office of the Secretary Mr. Samuel J. Birk ,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrission P.O. Box 243

|Washington, D.C. 20555 bbrrison, Missouri 65061

, Joseph E. Birk. Esquire Mr. Pcbert G. Wright'

Assistant to tne' General Counsel Poute 1U0 ion Electric CC M r Fulton, Missouri 65251p.O..Bex 149 '

| St. Iouis, Missouri d3166 Eric A. Eisen, EsquJ.re'

I Birch, Horton, Bittner & btnroe' A. Scotthuger, Esquire 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. , #1100

Assistant General Counsel Washingtcn, D.C. 20036| ,

| Missouri' Public Service Comrission| P.O./3cxi360| Jefferson Cit.y, Missouri 65102

N'

,|j

^

g

, MAILGRAM SERVICE CENTER (-pf y - ;" n u ,i j Q '

4 MIDDLETCHN. VA. 226c5 .

, y: i,

-i

.

C~, ': d~ ; g ; x q ?g g--:| v;' f M.h?i T ~' K. M r'~ ' '

,, ,-..,. .), 2 g m.J.-c..

-

; i ''_.

4 023126S292002 10/19/81 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP WSHW )1 2028221091 MGM TOMT WASHINGTON OC 10-19 1217P EST

3-

>SHAW PITTMAN J HUoSON S438 0001800 M ST NwNASHINGTON DC 200367 )

_

f THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONF!RMATION COPY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:

2028221091 TDMT WASHINGTON CC 39 10-19 1237P ESTPMS KENNETH M CH*.CKES RPT OLY MGM, DLR 9CHACKES AND HOARE 314 NORTH BRCA0WAYST LOUIS MO 63102

( IN THE MAT d 0F UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT ONE) ):DOCKET 8STNS0-4830L REI YOUR LETTER OF OCT 13TM 1981 APPLICANT DOESNOT AGREE TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSES TO MOTIONS FOR ..

SUMMARY DISPOSITION. LETTER TO FOLLOWTHOMAS A BAXTER COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT1800 M ST NWWASHINGTON DC 20036 -)

12:17 ESTl-

MGMCOMP

j

,s - )

..)

b )

.]'

;

)

J

)

TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TCLL - FREE PHONE NU'.15ERS- -

. . . - - ., _

.m - . . . . . . - -

>..,

' [ . ' [.. -} $PO.SM ON. 7. . ..

N'ONCONFORMANCE REPORT hNCR)- e- -

*' r-cameen_ e=== s a 2.-6. , -

,no en um - A.a nu er, e in _ _scn um.e 1i l, Hold Tags 1

Q carri y / 7:36 10-2'i-76 1 of 1 x 2-0117-C -A '

is ~.-. . A, n ~

. s, to N/A1 .

*. Power Block / Door Fesme Connection Bars.h. -

p. > >, CaetymOlag Dessamanaes

1 - p e,:e1 Specification 10466-C-131-Q Revision 6'

Bechtel Purchase Order 10466-C-131-Q. Revision 6Cives Drawings 30-818, 30-828, 30-807, 30-808, 30-810, 30-804,.a

%.u.. .e s. .s- - 30-813, 30-816, 30-817r

: s *

!

:fWeld-End preparations were. not included in fabrientien inaccordance with drawings. (SEE PAGE 2)

-wn _1 n /11 |-,.

d@_C %_'Id Oc Dar __ Imp.I

__- _c'***=' m= ""=

, e m .ua o, e 4 a.m rarn o m me,4. me:

I! Return the improperly fabbed bars to the, Civ( s Corp. for O n - se'|- rework at Cives expense per Telecon - Ray Chappel ft(Bochtel Rep.) and the Cives Corp. / O n,e'

.

Casse of Nonemitrire rancs and Acone to Prevent Raatrueers'

O Use AsisImproper detailing at Cives Fab Shop. Cives notified bythe Bechtel materials representative of their error in 02 medetailing g{g{|y{g,

I '

Actia. taken to Contred Ncmcrmforavaneis-

Q One hold tag applied. b#9Wr, 9' ,,n

OCT 13197G -

4i!e -

. cAnn2. Deccurerr cc:n2cr.,f 4 /L - /M H '7A

,Y 'g6fff$d5& A-bhd_ -S,kYN W %?$;

Dispnatwn- Impact Sutement tet.ded C Y., Q N,O A_W es Reensassened

'

C Duonanna Pereed as WGows: ^

, ,

90 a df'((ij k10 E %"8*t

1 ccnn t,pr.. ' g. , , . . .

L -u w e.

iG '.: ~

FEB 0 21377N y-'(y

'

,.nn gv 0"b'',w''QN Os r ~ e.

' '

b. m m gg

Fe n2 m 7 72.3l', /s/ Divtak Py 4 4-u _.,,10 / 29(76i Ajt ApM - TM4 Inte 5NUFPS et VIGt7 Appeeen! Tsue Deae:t

.

;[ 5utemeni of Com.Jeted Ache.__

V' mA ,y a /Jh,Ja.a .s/u}.qt.e -em .ujeehhJ A e/[ .6 w in . 4 m a ".sw. p.

s 4 Y_- _.,> /__ - ~ ,

D F # #7sd. $rFD e w l- ~ 2-vnKEMM -r L O A f % 4. ,. : -3 7zTrusa Csts M ~ T14'ae

-

~ " ' ~ Uma "

Aeuse Vefit.and Taue # Daae" ''

_

o tx ra a

y J. L 'mRmA % htel) U. A. PERICK (SNUPPS) W.11. VEBER (tE)_

|

| A F. SCWELLJUE) _,L G. RAMM (UE) F. F m nS (UE).

.y q. . o . . . - -.m u_uy % pr_v,_/s mia. . wa . . . _ _ . .

,

;. .

-

: .- - 'f . .,. 4 . , ;. . . . _.. - . ... . .

-- -

- -'

. . . . . . . = - -

,, ,,.. .

- --

N. .

'

g D"' [ci .Eu,@nuconan.wtcz ar.raarmcn-.%~,,m

'. . .;* .

' ' , ') 2 -< 2 -e,' --

, h.-

rm ,*m.um m uien e ou ucuu.a.wHold Tags*

10-25-7Gcam /7teg- 1 of 1 X 2-0117-c-A_

=

'Ihese bars did Ttot have tTeld end pre rations in accordance with l1

ldrnuinss should have ber-n beveled 45

EF-113-B803I. EF-2D-D807! EF-213-B31G

- *i

! EF-313-B3102

+' .

EF-313-D01G-2 -

.

.~

..

t EF-37.3-D810/1 .

j " _. EF-313-D810/2i. EF-213-D807/2!!,r- EF-313-D017/2

'

'_

.

;jg. EF-313-Ja17/1 -

SL EF-213-D816/1-

'

j [. ;i EF-213-D816/2 -'

y- EF-113-D800/15 * f: EF-113-D800/29 j| .

-.

EF-313-3810 *' '

E7-113-B804 ~: '

1 ,,| . -

EF-213-D807/1.

'

.

y' EF-313-B819 ."

.-

' p1 ' EF-313-D819/1 .,*In ' EF-313-D819/2

-.

'JU EF-113-D804/2. -*

* ' '- '

EF-113-0804/ -

,I, EF-113-D828 i ~ 6ed.M emmed- I4

'- ,

G j.4 EF-113-B82.

- ,.

j iV. - EF-713-B313-- * '

j.: .zF-n3-Dala/2 .. '

'

di EF-/13-DS13D ~~ ..

EF-713-D8Mh ddd commest!- n

sL EF-313-D310/1 1;, I.I EF-313-3817 6. .?

,

,, - +: t'

. t.:-

k-,

,

.:. s. . :; ,,

:- *

9 *)g (,

-'

~:4 f., ..

}.. .-;. w - - g {

,

I.

6 ;.",}^ ' . .

. ,. .

_.

s!

1 _ ' ' _ . , . . tg

. . . ., ...y...-... ,.. .

) 'pi.S

___..

~ ,

,

$ 'm ;; -.

1

[ . ?

N_ ., 's,r -

e '* ,

*

e

f ?

d! f - *

,t-

.

u,

i

4 * '

} Ze

s 6.

*

. . - -

";__

_,

. _ .

),. ,

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

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

, ! g: , @P servi. . _ . - .

.. .

,37343769 *

.

r ; *. --

-

.

/* "*~ DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIO'N $-.

OUAUIY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ' 12/15/ so.

ASME SECTION 111. DIVISION 1*

<

! aeNONCONFORMNICE A'IDgg m *

) CORRF.cTIVE Au W;.- 3 (E) %1 d3"

hf,' *{* 1 *_. _____zp4 - _ _ _ - _ - - - - ~ ~ -

._

l.E N.5 '~

-. .

::0 U D.1 SCOPE. ~ ~ ~

..h [I -o .i

:j! 1:

; h; e .=.}! materials and Items in nonconformance with .applicabic Code' . . This Section describes the controls used to assure that

,$ p: ' standards.' drawings, specifica tion , procedures or instructions.

'

>;; il. are not inadvertantly used or installed. These controls include

@)l' provisions for identification, documentation, segregation or

,t/ [, - control, disposition.. correction and close-out of-

j<p .ncnc0nformances.G h. i !:

~~'

?qb; This Section also des cribes the controls; used to assure that,

!i- conditions adverse to fuillty ar'e promptly identified pud are'

:,

f reported to appropriate levels of clarygement. These ron't rol s~ ;' assure that the cause of the condition adverse to quality is.,

. i, ' identified, documented and corrected to preclude repetition..

. , .

.,p *- -

y e.2 PROCEDUPE*

dh,..

, ,

: .8.2.1 Materials and Itens which are found to be in nonconformance with4

H.d[J[ project or Code requirements are identified, documented, scare-

,q 3 ga ted , or , cont.rcilcti, d.ixposi*in..ed, corrected and clGaed out in'

3.; 4 i accordance wich Construction Procedure A M II-02, "Nonconform-

[d' h,,l~8.2.2 Uhen' a noccGaforman$e 5

ance Centrol and Reporting.".

.

I'

(f it identified, the Quality' ControlL d s,, Inspector initiates the appropriate control t.g (QC Hold Tag,.. : q ,3 Exhibit 20, or I!ald_ for h iber QC Inspection / Action Tag,y C 'l Exhibit 21) sad attaches the tai to the noncenter::ing material

j f. or item (s) to stop or to control further processing isntil the.i

([ ([ nonconformance is resolved.. Wen a QC Huid tag is not used, the.

it sj .QC Inspector dociamantir Ethp.,:yethod used ta cantral the noncon-! '15 forming material #r 7tns(r) ori the Nonconformance Report ('iCR) *

L; ,(Exhibit 48) or Deficiency Report (DR) (Exhibit I.82). Noncon-,

'. ! '*t formance ReportsRepair dG. nsedjfsfYida.Deficiency Reports are used

s en. for nonconfor.unces requiring am ~d ij USE-AS-IS or

h for nonconformances requiring a revolk or reject disposition.l

, a -! h 8.2.3 The Originating per3cangE: downts the identification of theN N. nonconfoming ma t erfiI.Ee 5 It'em(s ) , ' The' ' de's e di p t ion WtIEnon' # r '*E

*"'-

j conforming material or item (s), the inspection method osed to*-

.J< It ' - .. -

M. . ' -'" J ;- p i:P.v.w.";-

i f:L t.t

..'.bi'A -.-r ,'

,__

_.

-

_

"]'.:3 . '. :. .:* . ::: . .c.,unt:iGwW" .:...; _p..G,.spg3</at-.e.

.

.

.-

i - - tr ay." v wwww.y.e;.c

,,

' .* ,~, : -. ..

'.T .* u.''.? M * * . d'?P

%. ' .y, J. A in ....C .is ~ i WRNW|6|.

g p b u m te.;m enn &;,my.M.is .g suur. ump ' ;pwgg 7_ _ ,_ggy tj

,- ..

. _ -. ..-. . .