ML19330A279
| ML19330A279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1971 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007151080 | |
| Download: ML19330A279 (7) | |
Text
,s
~
A, a
ab.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/[
CJ N6g lS7lr
~
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION pl Q
f]
Et t In the Matter of
)
E
//
)
4 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329y
)30-340 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MAPLETON INTERVENORS ' MOTION TO DISMISS The Mapleton Intervenors have moved to dismiss the appli-cation on the ground that the Applicant has caused the procurement and partial manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel for the Midland plant without having first obtained a construction permit.
Applicant submits this memoramdum in opposition to that motion.
The instant motion is very similar to the Saginaw Intervenors' motion of August 3, 1971, insofar as the l'atter sought to prohibit any further procurement or manufacture of components for the Midland plant.
Applicant there' fore incorporates herein by reference its Memorandum dated August 13, 1971 which was filed in opposition to the Saginaw motion of August 3rd and especially calls the Board's attentiod to the footnote on page 6 thereof.
We submit that the points made in our Memorandum on the Saginaw motion show that the conduct alleged to be unlawful in the Mapleton motion is not unlawful and are therefore dispositive of this motion as well.
However, we would like to make a few additional comments with respect to the Mapleton motion.
080 800g151 C
m G
The Mapleton intervenors argue (Motion, parag~raph 8) :
"For example, if the applicant had been required to obtain a construction permit before commencement of f abrication of the reactor pressure vessel, the Board could have imposed conditions in the permit with respect to the manner in which such f abri-cation was to be performed, the nature and frequency of inspections to be required at each step of f abrication, quality assurance and quality control requirements as,to the parts being f abricated, and qualifications of the employees engaged in the fabrication and inspections.
The Board could also have imposed as a condition of the permit a requirement that AEC personnel inspect and audit the f abrication at periodic intervals, and that specific reports and analyses be rendered.
In short, the Board would have had the pcwer to control the entire process of fabrication from inception to completion.
To the extent that substantial f abrication has already taken place, the Board has lost this power."
The Mapleton Intervenors overlook the crucial fact that the Commission has. decided to control.the manufacture of reactor press'ure vessels, not by requiring the issuance of a construction per-mit for their manuf acture, but by its continuing surveillance and evaluation of the manufacturing processes and of the quality control and quality assurance programs of manuf acturers (Tr. 4508-10, 4541-43), its specific review of such processes and programs at tne construction permit stage, its requirement that the vessels be constructed in accordance with specified codes and standards (see 10 CFR 550.55a), inspection of the vessel and its manufacture by its Compliance Division and its final review at the operating license stage.
6 m---
m,
_h Perhaps the most important of the foregoing are the codes and standards required by 10 CFR S50.55a.
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to which the reactor pressure vessel is required by the regulation to be built specifies the quality of materials, standards of workmanship and the design criteria for the vessel.
To assure that f abrication requirements are met, inspection and testing is' required for each component part and for the final product.
The ASME code also covers the quality control and quality assurance programs required.
Examples of the testing required by the code are Charpy V-notch impact tests on the steel plate, weld heat-affected zone and weld-metal; 100% ultra-sonic examination of all component parts of the pressure-containing.
components and their supports ; 100% ultrasonic testing of cladding on reactor flange seal surf aces ; ultrasonic testing of cladding-on a twelve inch grid for' bonding; liquid penetrant test of flange seal surf aces ; dye-penetrant testing of cladding af ter stress relief; magnetic particle testing of carbon and low alloy base metal following quench and temper; dye-penetrant inspection of each partial weld as done and magnetic particle or radio-graphic testing of each completed weld; magnetic particle inspection of external surface of vessel, including the weld seam; and ultrasonic and hydrostatic testing of the completed vessel.
Each step of the process and each inspection or test must be thoroughly documented.
This is required not only by the ASME Code but by paragraph XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
5
,~
I
', ' - ~
The documentation is audited by an ASME inspector, by quality assurance teams of both the vendor and the Applicant and by the AEC's Division of Compliance.
The AEC's Compliance Division has testified in this case as to how its inspection of the reactor vessel is made, usually ct the culmination of the fabrication process when the hydro-static testing is done, and how this inspection relies in large part on examination of the quality control and quality assurance records kept by both the reactor vendor and the Applicant 4
(Tr. 4538-43).
The Compliance Division has testified that its continuing surveillance of the vessel manuf acturer's operations,
together with its examination of whatever other audits there are, particularly Applicant's, permit it to rely on the docu-mentation of the vessel's manufacture (Tr. 4542).
It has testified
'that "part of the inspection of a vendor also includes the business of observing actual work in progress" (Tr. 4564) and' that there is no part of a 50% complete reactor vessel which-
"would not be available to some type of non-destruct'ive testing, either radiograph, magparticle examination, ultrasonic inspection
(Tr. 4568).
It is also the uncontroverted testimony of the Compliance Division that it is sound practice to wait until the pressure vessel is at or near completion before an inspection of the pressure vessel itself is made (Tr. 4569).
Moreover, the Record shows that the inspection program followed by the Compliance Division with respect to the Midland vessel is the one which it usually follows (Tr. 4508-09, 4568-69).
Thus, the fact that the o
4
-v.-
G
/
4 1 vessel is being manufactured prior to the award of the construction permit, which is customary in the industry, has not caused any changes in the inspection program.
If in,tervenors, at the hearing, had made a substantial and convincing showing that manufacture and inspection of the reactor vessel pursuant to the requirements of 550.55a and Appendix B to Part 50 would not produce a safe vessel, then the Board, under the Commission's Calvert Cliffs memorandum, would have had to certify an appeal on the question of the validity of these regulations, as applied to this proceeding.
- However, such a showing has not been made.
Finally, even assuming arguendo that Applicant's procure-ment and manufacture of the vessel prior to the award. of a construction permit was in ~ f act unlawful, this would not be an Edequate basis for the relief sought by the Mapleton intervenors --
)
dismissal of the proceeding.
Not only does the Act not provide for such a remedy but, in view of the fact that Applicant has caused the vessel to be manuf actured in good faith relian'ce on a
' Commission regulation which permitted it, dismissal would be a harsh, inequitable and unduly punitive measure.
This is especially true in view of the Compliance Division's testimony that adcquate inspection can be accomplished at or near completion of the vessel.
4 9
+
4 7......
q
-6 CONCLUSION For all of the foreoing reascns, the motion should be denied.
August 19, 1971 Respectfully submitted, aL-
^
LOWENSTEIN AND NEWM5i 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel:
. Robert Lowenstein Harold P.,
Graves j
John K.
Restrick Jerome E.
Sharfman Richard G. Smith 9
S i
-w,--
,,,,.-,,,..-...-_...-,-r-
q Q
J
's e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
+
In the Matter of
.)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
I hereby certify that copies of the " Applicant's Memorandum in Opposition to Mapleton Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss", dated August 19, 1971, in the above-captioned matter has been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 19th day of August,1971.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kaye, Scholer, Pierman, Hays Columbia University School of Law and Handler Box 38, 435 ',7est 116th Street 425 Park Avenue New York, Ne't York 10027 New York, New York 10022 Dr. Clark Goodman James N. O'Cennnz, Esq.
Professor of Physics The Dow Chemical Company University of Houston.
2030 Dow Center 3801 Cullen Boulevard Midland, Michigan 43640 F.auston, Texas 77004 Myron M. Cherry,.Esq.
Dr. David B. Hall 109 N.
Dearborn Street'
)
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Suite 1005 P.O. Box 1663 Chicago, Ill.
60602 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman William J.
Ginster, Esq.
Atomic Safe.ty and Licensing Suite 4 Board Panel Merrill Building U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Saginaw, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C.
20545 James A.
Kendall, Esq.
Stanley T.
Robinson, Esq.
135 N. Saginaw Road Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Midland, Michigan 48640 Office of the Secretary of the Commission Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Berlin, Roisman and Kessler Washington, D.C.
20545 1910 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D..C.
20036 Irving Like, Esq.
200 West Main Street Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Babylon, N. Y 11702 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission W&shington, D.C.
20545
. Oh i
erome E. Sharfman f) 4
.