ML18045A253
| ML18045A253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1980 |
| From: | Bielawski A, Mark Miller, Murphy P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006190524 | |
| Download: ML18045A253 (22) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of )
)
-i20NSUMERS POWER COMP ANY )
)
(Palidsades Nuclear Power Facility))
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO COMPEL INTRODUCTION On May 14, 1980, Consumers Power Company ("Consumers")
filed a "Motion to Compel" requesting that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) enter an order that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) respond to certain of Consumers discovery requests contained in "Consumers Power Company's First Round of Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," dated February 25, 1980. Subsequent to the filing of its Motion, Consumers was provided with certain NRC documents related to this proceeding, pursuant to its March 19, 1980 Freedom of Information Act request.
Because of the NRC's objection to its discovery requests, Consumers was necessarily obliged to make certain assumptions regarding what might be contained in the materials which the NRC withheld from disclosure. And, based upon these assumptions, Consumers argued, in its Motion to Compel, that the materials were relevant and necessary to a
\
\
I
\
\
proper decision in this proceeding. Some of the documents provided under Consumers' FOIA request tend to confirm Consumers' expectations regarding the potentially exculpa-tory nature of the information sought in the Inter~ogatory deemed objectionable by the NRC. Accordingly, Consumers 1/
files this supplement to its Motion to Compel.-
2/
ARGUMENT-
- 1. Interrogatories 2(b), (c), (d) and (e), 3, 4 and 5 Interrogatories 2(b), (c), (d) and (e), 3, 4 and 5 request facts, calculations, criteria, recornrnend~tions and documents considered during the internal review process which led up to the Off ice of Inspection and Enforcement Notice of Violation. In particular, these Interrogatories seek information concerning the manner in which NRC personnel evaluated the facts pertaining to the alleged items of non-compliance in terms of applying these facts to the enforcement criteria and the governing statutes and regulations. This would include a description of the analysis performed and relied upon by the Office of the Director ("Director") in deciding that Consumers committed the violations set forth 1/ Consumers was granted permission to file this supplement pursuant to the ALJ's Order, dated June 9, 1980.
2/ . Since the newly provided information provides support for Consumers' argument that the information sought pursuant to the Interrogatories deemed objectionable by the NRC is necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding, this supplemental motion will only address this issue.
in the November 9, 1979 Notice of Violation, and that Consumers should be fined in the amount proposed in the December 20, 1979 Order Imposing Civil Penaties. The analyses of the other NRC personnel assigned responsibilities with respect
~ to these matters is also included within the scope of these Interrogatories. Consumers argued that this information is relevant and necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding for two basic reasons.
First, to the extent these Interrogatories seek to discover the reasoning process underlying the Director's ultimate decision to issue the above referenced Notice of Violation and Order Imposing Civil Penalties they are unquestion-ably proper. Given that the NRC will bear the initial burden of establishing that Consumers in fact .committed the violations and that the civil penalties proposed are warranted one would expect that the very same information relied upon by the Director in issuing the Notice and Order will be presented at the hearing by the NRC in its attempt to meet its initial burden of proof. Consequently, the information sought pursuant to these Interrogatories relates directly to facts and arguments on which the NRC will rely in presenting its case. Since the fundamental purpose for discovery is to inform a party of its adversary's case, and since the discovery requests in question are intended for this specific purpose, the information sought must be provided.
Secondly, Consumers argued that to the extent 1
recommendations submitted by NRC personnel proposed a different, i.~., lesser, sanction than that ultimately proposed by the Director, this information, as well as a description of the considerations which influenced the
~ lesser sanction, is relevant to any defense Consumers may raise in support of its position that the proposed penalty should be mitigated. In other words, Consumers' position is that it is entitled to discover whether the NRC possesses exculpatory information which should be considered by the ALJ in reaching his determination as to whether the fine recommended by the Director should be reduced.
At the time Consumers filed its Motion to Compel, Consumers merely presumed that certain NRC personnel may have recommended a lesser sanction than that ultimately proposed by the Director. However, it has now been provided with a memorandum, dated October 26, 1979, from James G~
Keppler, Director, Region III to George c. Gower, Acting
,Executive Officer for Operations Support, IE, to which Mr.
Keppler attached a draft Notice of Violation regarding the alleged noncompliances in question. (See Appendix A, attached hereto.) Mr. Keppler's proposed Notice of Violation recommends that the licensee be fined $5,000.00 for the alleged Item I of noncompliance. In contrast, the fine ultimately recommended 3/
by the Director for this item amounted to $2,120,000.00.-
3/ This amount was modified to $441,000.00 under IE's inter-pretation of the limitation contained in Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act that the total of civil penalties for any thirty day period cannot exceed $25,000.00.
The extreme divergence between the sanctions re-commended by these two off ices indicates that the significance of the alleged items of noncompliance and/or the meaning of the enforcement criteria, and the governing statutory_ provisions
....~ay reasonably be subject to different interpretations. As the parties to this proceeding agree, neither the interpreta-tion offered by the Director nor that of Region III is con-trolling in regard of the ALJ's decision with respect to these matters; i.e., as the ultimate decision-maker he may adopt either of these views, in whole or in part, or may decide that both interpretations are flawed. This does not mean, however, that these interpretations are not relevant to the ALJ's decision. To the contrary, given that these offices are assigned the day-to-day responsibility of enfor-cing and administering the Commission's civil enforcement authority the ALJ may well consider the interpretations advanced by these offices to be extremely probative. It is clear, however, that to the extent the ALJ may be persuaded that Mr. Keppler's recommendations are based upon an accurate interpretation of the significance of the alleged noncom-pliances and of the meaning of the enforcement criteria and the relevant statutes and regulations, evidence of Mr.
Keppler's recommendations, and the reasons underlying these recommendations, are directly relevant to Consumers' position that the proposed penalties should be reduced, even if one assumes that the alleged violations occurred. To permit the NRC to deprive Consumers, and consequently the ALJ, of such exculpatory evidence would clearly be unconscionable. See, United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 12 (1935).
Moreover, if Consumers can establish that the penalty proposed by the Director was influenced by consider-
....~ ations which are inconsistant with the purposes for which section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted, the ALJ might attach more weight to the recommendations submitted by other NRC personnel, such as Mr. Keppler, which may not have been so influenced. Consumers is not suggesting that the Director's decision was motivated by improper considerations.
We do however submit that in view of the statements made by Dr. Hendrie at the press conference announcing the enforcement action that "[i]n carrying out its enforcement actions, the NRC *.* has been criticized in times past for seeming to .** look for rath~r lower amounts to be levied for a violation than even the present law would allow" and that "one of the reasons that I [i.e. Dr. Hendrie] have chosen to announce today's civil penalty myself is to make clear that that is certainly not going to be the case in the future", it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the recommended penalty was proposed, at least in part, in response to these criticisms.
Clearly, Section 234 was not enacted to permit the NRC to appease those who are critical of its handling of other unrelated matters, and if it were established that the enforcement action was instituted _against Consumers for this purpose, the ALJ would be entirely justified in discounting the importance of the Director's recommendations, and giving considerably more weight to recommendations which were not politically influenced.
It may well be that the Director's decision was
~
influenced solely by proper considerations. However, Dr.
Hendrie's statements, when considered in light of the recom-mendations submitted by Mr. Keppler, create an impression of improper and arbitrary conduct which should be explored through further discovery. These matters are directly relevant to Consumers' possible defenses because they affect the weight to be afforded the Director's recommendations.
It also would seem that the Agency, and the ALJ, should make every effort to dispell the present impression that the NRC has utilized its enforcement authority in this case in an arbitrary and capricious manner. For, i t is clear that the deterrent effect contemplated by those who enacted Section 234 would be severely diluted if licensees believe that enforcement sanctions will be arbitrarily proposed depending upon the existing political climate.
Consumers believes that there may be other infor-mation within the NRC's possession which is as material, if not more so, to Consumers' position that the proposed penalties are not warranted. Unless the NRC is required to respond to Consumers' outstanding discovery Consumers will not be able to present arguments in its defense which it might otherwise raise, thereby causing severe harm and prejudice to its right to a fair hearing based upon a complete record. The NRC must therefore be compelled to disclose the information sought under the discovery requests in question.
4/
- 2. Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14~
Another document which was provided to Consumers pursuant to the FOIA request is a memorandum, dated March 19, 1980, from T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Projects Section, RIV, to s. E. Bryan, A/D for Field Coordination, DROI, IE, relating to the enforcement actions taken by Region IV for violations of containment integrity. In discussing containment integrity violations which had occurred in facilities for which Region IV has inspection responsibilities, Mr. Westerman states the following:. "No enforcement action was taken on any of these [i.e. containment integrity violations] as the IE Past policy (MC0800) had been not to cite a licensee on reported items for which 5/
there had been adequate corrective action".- (See attached Appendix "B".) This statement provides a good illustration of why the NRC should be required to respond to Consumers discovery requests pertaining to the manner in which the NRC's enforcement criteria has been interpreted and applied in past enforcement actions.
4/ These interrogatories request information regarding the mariner in which the enforcement criteria has been interpreted and applied in past enforcement actions.
5/ MC0800 is the most recent version of the NRC's enforcement policy made available to the public.
In light of the fact that the NRC does not allege that once apprised of the existence of the open valves, Consumers failed to take adequate corrective actions, Consumers may wish to argue that pursuant to applicable NRC
- policy, as set forth in Mr. Westerrnan's memorandum and perhaps other as yet undisclosed documents, no enforcement sanction whatever is warranted in this case. Had Consumers not been provided with Mr. Westerman's memorandum, it would have been hampered in its preparation for its defense.
Information such as that contained in Mr. Westerman's memorandum is clearly relevant to and necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding. Inasmuch as there may be additional information within the possession of the NRC which sheds light upon the proper interpretation of the enforcement criteria, such information may be useful to Consumers in advocating its position that the proposed 6/
sanctions are not warranted.- However, unless the NRC is required to respond to the discovery requests, Consumers may never be in a position to raise defenses which may otherwise be available. Consumers must therefore insist on, and the ALJ must require, full disclosure of the information requested pursuant to Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14.
~/ For example., there may be information which establishes that under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act as it has consistently been applied in past enforcement actions, the classification of Item I of noncompliance as a "continuing" violation is clearly improper. This would seem to be consistent with the recommendations submitted by Mr. Keppler, as well as the Commission guidance in regard of this issue.
{See Consumers' Motion to Compel at p. 16.)
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated in Consumers original Motion to Compel, as supplemented by the present Motion, the Administrative Law Judge should find that the materials requested in Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15 and 17 are relevant, necessary for a proper decision and are not privileged. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge should order the NRC to produce the information sought in these Interrogatories.
DATED: June 13, 1980.
Respectfully submitted, Michael I. Miller_
1
- ?id L7Jx V/}
~
,.~ '
(.,.- _...' ****--*--
P. Bielawski Attorneys For Licensee Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 e
SPCC-tAL t+A-Nb Lt f\/6-
. R.EQU I t~D JH: ~c(crfcb. on~ . Or tv1orC'...)
U>t>c;((S l)eic.f ;k"
\)th.- ~-l-r-1
- 'l>cw"cY*~"
°t)~c_
~u:w
. .C,'C/"~~~ I (._s
_'le;cr- 'bt-', /
I St(.. ~J.~ 0 1'>t.f \.~ fl.t.c.o r-l Ad'IM a~7r..1.:i.J..
D Ylt"' ~cs -f, k e.J.Jc.J.. fo -()(.u+.;"' '("c.u,,.J.-
ANO:
n ~ i.UJ.... ~*it.Lr .,. "-~ ....1-1.r w ;~ "tNJ
- ~k-ft.r oJfuAd._
SfE.c..tAL _ft.OW? T4= ~ u-~
-C]-yu____ ,~UTIMI, t.N\~J; Attr* ,t..J.-
- ~,......
/""', 0 e UNITED STATES l\:UCLE;AR REGULATORY
. HEGION Ill COMl\~-ON Appendix A ng Roo;.EVEL. T ROAD CL.E~ EL.L. YN. IL UNO IS G-OtJ7 Octobe.r 26, 1979
...._7'<*J-.--*!
- 1
- -*.u ,-n:....:_>-t* i.*o_i:,*.*
i: -1::* C Ci"-o-"P
- A,.. .. *o.r- ....
- CD\**er, ...,._.._i,., ""x ec ut'ive o+*f*ccr i for 0 pe.r.iai.On$
Si.:.po=t, IE .,.
- /\ ....... ' .
~.
James G. K~ppler 1 Oir~ctor, Regioo III
-*-=~~ ~r*.
,.._,..,_...Joi. I co::st::-SRS PO\.i'L.R CO~PAKY (PALISADES) - RECO~'{DlDED CIVIL r:::r;AT.TY
'~*e :cccr=::e::d that .! C{\'il pe.71ally lie atl~ess'cd aga-in!:t t.he Co:lsumers Po1.,1c::r Cc=~~~y ~o: activili~~ conducted ~t th~ Palisades ~ucl~ar Facility. The
?:::.:::i?al :-e.3son for this reco~enc3tion is the disco..-cry iu St:pteILJber,
- .r. .:.t t'.::= license"~ h;id beeo operating the reactor in various modes **it.b
- -c:::~i:...":1ettt. jr1LPgrity violated hecP.u.se of the lo'Cl::.ed cpe.n condition of
."":2:::.:z.l i::;~li;tiou v'"lves in the c:ontair-.m!:!nt purgt! exhaust. byp.ass line.
- -:::~:: i::.:::ci. '.:.ion l :i ~:~ l \' existed i::;ince Anri] 1978. This is the tenth i:i::;tance
- ~:':..:".~.:.:...:.=,~nt. i nteg;i':.y ,,*iulation repo:-ted by the licen~ee since the
'::*::::.::.:-:.!~~ of 1'.-J/8, s~ve::J. o~ ...,*hic:h have re.sultcd froi'l µer.so:inel t'!rror.
- ~::. .:?.:e.st ins::.anc~ con:.LiLut~s nonco:iipliance in Lhe v.i.olat:i!in c.ltegory.
- -:.:: .::i*:il ::i~11a1t.y rcco:::.:n~i:.dation is therefore b::i:.;ed on the history cf
=~~:?~~~~;;~ intcg:.::.:y problems ~nd on the si~nificance of this perLicular
- .::.::-:-.;l::..:.::icc.
~:tac~!d for ~Q use is e ~raft letter to the liL:eUl::iee with attached
- .!.c~ of Vinbtion <l
- .ld Proposed 1q-io;,ition of Civil ?cc.olti~s. Alsn
~:.:.;:*;-,f'ri ~s a t..~ble u: containill~nt int~srily violations n:porte.d si::::.ce
- ..::; .:..i~~!~.i.ng of 1978.
~~:~ your cnnrurrence, we:: would propn~~ to coordinate the sLaifing oi
- .t:s esc<<hLl:-'.tl civil penalty as described in my wer:iorac.dur:i to y0u cb.leu S : p:. e ;;- :i ~ r 1 7 , 19 7 9
- S µ t! c i fi c;, 11 y , C . No re l i us ( 3 8 4- 2 6 S 4 ) o +/- r;:y s ta ff
'~*~:: coorcinatc co:-~"Je::ts direc:L1y from ELD and fros ROI. Re.solution of
- '.:':':!-'rP.lll~Cs will be handled by telephone conf~renc~, or a .special llH;!t!tlng i~ 1*eP.ded. ?lc~::;e let. us !mo~* how you ~**i~h to proceed.
- .
- :t3c:!-..::en:.: D:-a.f: ltr to
- ..~ce.nF:e~. w/att.::.cf...=ie~ts c:: *-*/::'..:.i::ch.:~cnt.:
~:::rc::=:1i ~0sC:lcy, P.Ol, E.
D:Rf.1*";
Jocket No. 50-255 Cousumers Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. B. DeWitt Vice President Nuclear Operations
?12 West Michigan Avenue J~ckson, MI ~9201 -
G*:nt.lemen:
'~.< ccntly it was discovered that the Palisades Nuclear Power Facil:i.~~:' J:i.:,,j u~cn operated at various times with containment integrity violated by -the
- . *:>ed-open condition of manual isolation valves in the containment )?llY.;:,*-
tJy]Jass line. It is likely that this condition existed since April J 97fl, 1
1*ing which time the reactor was operated at various power levels.
u~cause of the safety significance of this matter and the previous history containment integrity violation since January 1978 (Appendix C), we
,,.... **,. opose to impose civil penalties in the amount of $11,000 for this
~ioJ.ation and for related procedural noncompliances which contributed to 1: c cause of this condition.
1 This matter was discussed with you during a
~eeting conducted by Mr. James G. Keppler, Director, Region III and J:~mbers of his staff with representatives of Consumers Power Management
")J:* October ' 1979 .
.':*.1cJitionally, we are concerned about findings of noncompliance in the i'r'C3S of health physics, transportation of radioactive waste and security
.:oi. Palisades. A meeting to discuss your corrective actions related to bealth physics noncompliances was conducted on September 18, 1979.
Another meeting to discuss the correction of the security noncompliances
- l -
..
- l was ~onducted on September 20, 1979.
DRAFT Therefore, in your reply, please f"" :'1'ciress, in addition to the corrective actions for the specific items of
~~Dcornpliance set forth in Appendix A, those actions taken by management
.tl~ improve the overall regulatory performance of the Palisades facility.
'L1~ items of noncompliance identified on the September 1979 inspection
~re set forth in Appendix A. Appendix B is a proposed notice of imposition
,* . :* '.:ivil penalties. ID responding you sho11J.d follow the instructions sel.
faTth in Appendix A and Appendix B.
~:* ,; response and the findings of subsegueut inspections will determine
- .:*~.'~:*her furtber escalated enforcement is necessary to assure contined 1
!Wl:ation in compliance with the m~c requirements.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- \1*i* .1 cbments
- l. Appendix A - Notice of Violation
')
,I *
- Appendix B - Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties
.) . Appendix C - Containment Integrity Violations l DRAFT
- . e
~pendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-255 BasLd on tbe inspection conducted during September, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with :NRC requirements, a:: '.*oted below. Item 1 is a violation> and Items 2 and 3 are infractions.
- 1. Tech...nical Scpcification 3.6.la states that containment integrity shall not be violated unless the reactor is in the cold shutdown condition.
Contrary to the above, the licensee on numerous and lengthy occasions from April, 1978, to September, 1979, operated the reactor in other modes, including full-power operations, with containment integrity violated by the locked-open condition of both series manual isolation valves in the contra:i.nment purge exhaust bypass line.
(Civil Penalty - $5,000)
- 2. Technical Specification 6.8.1.c requires implementation of procedures for surveillance and testing of safety-related equipment. Health Physics procedure H.P.6.27 govern testing of inplace HEPA and charcoal
- l -
- 1
\,ftf DRAFT e
filters in safety-related systems pursuant to Technical Specification Table 4.2.2, and requires notification and signoff by the Shift Supervisor and the plant Health Physicist on completion of testiDg.
Contrary to the above, the required notification and signof:fs were not completed after the licensee tested filters in the cont.airunen'L.
ventilation exhaust bypass line under H.P.6.27 on April 4-7, 1978.
(Civil Penalty - $3,000)
Technical Specification 3.6.3 requires that prior to going critical after a refueling outage, an administrative check will be made to confirm that all manual containment isolation valves are closec aDd locked.
Contrary to the above, due to a deficient containment integrity verification procedure, the plant has been taken critical after each of its refueling outages without confirmation that two manual contain*
rnent isolation valves for the containment purge exhaust bypass \..'ere closed and and locked as required.
(Civil Penalty - $3,000)
DRr.:*..
- Appendix B NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Docket No. S\~** -'):,;
\'(!:; s office proposes to impose civil penal ties pursuant to Sec i::i.t :* :::*.3/.:
- i:!: '.*he Atomic Energy Ac 1* of 1954, as amemded, (42 USC 2282), arir: '.. *:,
JO CFR 2.205 in the cumulative amount of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000) for the specific items of noncompliance set forth in Appendix A t.o t]w
.Y" .'r letter. In proposing to impose civil penalties pursuant tc- 1".hi::.
.... *j_on of the Act and in fixing the proposed amount of the penaJ.h.es.
factors identified in the Statements of Consideration publisl12d in Federal Register with the rule making action which adopted JO CFR 2.20~
FR 16894) August 7.6, 1971, and the "Criteria for Determining Enforce*
~ ':
Acticns," which was sent to NRC licensees on December 31, 19/4,
,. '".if? been taken into account.
Cr*1::~urners Power Company may, i-.'ithin twenty (20) days of receipt of this 1w*;.ice pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Eleven Thousand
!':<].a.rs ($11,000) or may protest the imposition of the civil penalties j n \,'hole or in part by a writ ten answer. Should Consumers Power Company fRil to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an oi oe.r imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above. Should l.~1q1surners Powe.r Company elect to file an answer protesting the civil 1*1*ualties, such ans\,ier may (a) deny the items of noncompliance listed in the Notice of Violation in whole or in part, (b) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (c) show error in the Notice of Violation or (d) show
.. _:.~4FT
- -~: - reasons why ti.penalties should no: -- *. '=.i.tion
- ,*,- ;notesting the civil penalties in wholE' O'~ in pa'*t,. 2**.-:1; 2~-iswer may l'P.quest remission or mitigation of the penalties. Any vrj_t1-Pn answer in
~~ccrdance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth s~pa~?t2:~ from the
- ".
- ~.tement or explanation in reply pursuant r,-, 10 CFI1 2 ./.\::, but may
- '*: :-.nporate by specific reference (e.g., gi_,,j_ng p<.=gc:. and ;*:.,::;:;[',":aph Pumbers) to avoid. repetition .
1
.:umers Power Company's attention is dir::.c.ted to the ct~:2:. provisions
- 0 CFR 2. 205 regarding, in particular, f 2jJ_ure to 2ns\-12;* .'-*;d ensuing
~rs; answer, consideration by this office, and ensuinl o~ciers; requests
- hearings, hearings and ensuing orders; compromise; and collection.
:1 failure to pay any civil penalty due vh:.i.ch has been subsequently
- <*:.:::rr:iined j_n accordance with the applicabJe provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, 1*l:r matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty,
- 1lnss compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil
- .;
- tion pursuant to Section 234c of the Atomjc Energy Ace of 1954, as
., ... rnded, (42 USC 2282).
PAL I ::ii\ !J 1-::j NC __*i-~:~,_*E
's-c:_ ;
...... I I 1
_, i>~. ~:.r.;' interiock failed, both doors open simultaneously 1/7/78 with prin~ry system 0
(cold shucdown is below 210 F) 78-03 1/8/78 Equip. With equip*. hatch open shutdown cooling heat-exchanger outlet valve failed closed. Primary coolant tern . rose to~ 215°F for 20 min .
.'-._.,/
/8-13 4/21/78 P.E. Breathing air supply valve opened for personnel doing control rod drive maint, leaving on (degraded) line check-valve for isolation with reactor at hot shutdown l/
78-17 5/9/78 P.E. Stearn generator blowdonw line radiation monitor failed, letdown isolation valves blocked open for chem. sampling (reg'd)left blocked when primary coolant system heated above 210°(to 532°F:
78-28 8/4/78 P.E. Containment valve 1806 (purge exh. isol.) T-ring not pressurized, series valve T-ring air (degraded) supply-<: 30d. reg. to (both CV' s were closed) (condition existed _from 4/7 /78) 0 78-30 8/'i.8/78 I... E. With primc.:cy coolant @ 305 F, purge exhaust valves were opened for purging though auto-supply to T-~ings wss inoperable on c~ntainment valves 1805, 1806 & 1807 79-Gc l/25Fi9 .2. E. ~** gunge fitting on outer door of personnel airlock open (believed since 7/3/78) so cont. inte violated whenever inner door open with reac.r:or above cold shucdmrn
.....,.:os 2/20/79 Equip. Con.:ainrnent building purge valves cleterm:lned inoperable vs. DBA pressures - accident anale:>
nae met (since construction) i;henever vlvs. open with prinw.ry coolant>- ~ 210°
- ,. S-1 S 3/31/79 *p- . ,.,t:. Drained containwenc sump via cest connection between isolation valves not downstream of both (de rc:.deci\ as ir.tended
)j believed lntermittant opening should be allowed - sought T/S chge, since C.E. std. T/S permit -
{I did not have Rx critical; S/A tubes provide isolation 78-01 & 78-03 resulted from mechanical failures---79-09 due to inadequate design---remalnder due to personnel errors
(_ (
.. ' 1-. .....
Appendix B UNl1"SD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 A~LINC'l'r.>111, TEXAS 1$1)1:.!
Marc;h 19, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: S. E. Bry~n, A/D fur Field Coordin~ttv~> DROI, IE FROM: T. F. w=~term.3n, Chi~f. Reactor Projects Section, RIV sun.rncT;: MOSELEY MEMO TO RkG!ONAL DIRECTORS (NO DATE) CONCERNTNG "RESPONSES 'i'O 1.NTERROOAl'OJU.l:i:S FROM ATTORNEYS FQR THE CON8lJl.iERS 11 UWER COMPANY* RC:: PAI,JSADES CIVIL P.E'NAL'l'Y 11 A..." di~<;ui;~~d with you on the telephone an March 18, 1980. iole ~ir~ £ot"'Wardins by tr.lcfax. th~ following Licensee Ev~ut Reports ln re~pon~c to int~rrog atory /Jl2 which rels.te tu viulatl.cm!:I of contnirummt integrity.
For.t C.:ilhc;iun 50-285/74-14 ANO Unit l 50-JlJ/78-)l ANO Uiiit 1 50~313/78-32 ANO Unit 2 50-368/73-18 u.n* .:.. ..... ~.i.J~~*...., ** ,"lJ.Y -enc: ron; i:::ainoun event: t:o De s1gn1Ll.C3.:rlr.. ?io enrorcemerit ac.tfon ve.s taken on any of these as the IE p.:iat policy (MC 01300) had been not to cite a licen/;ee 01"1 reported lteins fur wb.i~.h then~ had bean adequate corre~t1ve ~~tiuu.
Oth~r types of it~rn~ :l.de.ntifi~d during the review of the Furr. Calhoun, Cooper and A.tTO docke.t files include the following:
One of two series Coutainme.nl Iaol.at..1.on V:;i1V<?r;; 1nop~rativ~ due to persu:m.el/p.t'o~edure:. ~rrn"t" and/or l!qnipmcnt malfunction..
F;li,J.urc to p~-rfoI"lTI surv~illance leak rate testing withit\ specified.
frequency *
.c'e11etratiuus that h;ic! nut 1nltlally bt!en i(lentifi.cd fQr leak rate testing.
The.re ar~ nu lt~m~ of norn:.ompl :i.anci;. which RIV considers to fall in the cat_egory of interrogatories 13 or H.
- /.~-
- r *.P. wee terma11, chi.er.
Rtt~~tor Proj c:i::.t~ S~ction At t.::i~hmcnt::.: !
As stated i-
,.) .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-255 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) License No. DPR-20 (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan P. Bielawski, one of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company, certify that copies of "Supplemental Motion to Compel" have been served in the above-captioned matter on the following by depositing same in United States mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of June, 1980:
Honorable Ivan w. Smith
.Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Murray, Esq.
Director and Chief Counsel Rulemaking and Enforcement Division Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Lieberman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen G. Burns, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Off ice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
1' I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 DATED: June 13, 1980.
Alan P. Bielawski