ML20011A458
| ML20011A458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1981 |
| From: | Lessy R, Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011A456 | List:
|
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8110130430 | |
| Download: ML20011A458 (11) | |
Text
,
10/7/81 a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEf0PE TK2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE 161hG B0'ARD In the Matter of UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. STri 50-483 OL (Callaway Plant, Unit 1
)
NRC STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTETVENORS' CONTENTION II-A(1)
I.
INTRODUCTION On April 21, 1981, the Licensing Board admitted Joint Intervenors' Contention II-A(1) which alleges under the heading of Failure of the Quality Assurance F rogram:
II.
SUBSTANDARD PIPING A.
Material Manufacturing Deficiencies Safety-related pipe installed at Callaway was manufactured by a company or companies which did not have adequate control of welding parameters.
This resulted in known cases of defects which did not comply with the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. The evaluation and acceptance of those defects and deficiencies were not done in accordance with the ASME Code. The safety of pipe installed at Callaway remains in question and demands further investigation before an operating license shoud be issued.
For example:
1.
In May 1979 a pipefitter discovered and reported a substcadard piece of ASME C! ass II SA-358 piping which had been installed in the emergency core cooling system. The pipe was substantially out-of-round, was machined below the minimum wall, and had rejectable weld defects on the inside of a longitudinal seam weld.
(See,NRC l
Report No. 50-483/80-10).
l l
8110130430 811007 l
PDR ADOCK 05000 0
1
The NRC Staff asserts that Contention II-A(1) presents no genuine issue of mat r'al fact and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its c
favor as a matter of law.
Section II of this pleading will discuss generally the law appli-cable to motions for summary disposition.Section III will set forth the Stai:'s reasons for concluding that Contention 3 raises no genuine issue of material fact.
Attached to this motion are the Affidavits of Gordon Beeman, James Foster, and William J. Key and the Statement of
..aterial Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard.
II. GENERAL POINTS OF LAW The Commission's Rules of Practice provide for summary disposition of certain issues on the pleadings where the filings in the proceeding show that there is no genuine issue as te tny material fact end that the movant is entitled te a decision as a matter of law.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749.
As the Commission 3 summary disposition rule is analogous to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (summary judgment), Federal court decisions interpreting Rule 56 may be relied on for an understanding of the operation of the summary disposition rule.1/ Thus, in Adickes v.
Kress & Co., 389 U.S. 144, 157 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the party seeking summary judgment has "the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact." / To meet this burden, the 1/
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
2/
See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-433, 6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977).
r
.- - =
m movant must eliminate any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.E To further this goal, the summary disposition rule provides that all material facts, set out in the statement enandatorily accompanying summary disposition motions, will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a).
Any other party may serve an answer supporting or opposir.g the motion for summary disposition.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a). Attached to a motion opposing summuy disposition must be a separate, saort, and concise statement af the material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a). A material fact is one which may affect the outcome of the litigation.O The op-posing party need not show that it would prevail on the issues, but only that there are genuine material issues to be tried.M Furthermore, the record and affidavits supporting and opposing the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.N Finally, the proponent of a motion for summary disposition must meet its burden of establishing that it is enn tled to judgment as a matter of law even if 1
y Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 368 U.S. 464, 468 (1962); Sartor
- v. Arkansas Natural Gas Lorp., 321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944).
y Mutual Fund Investors, Inc. v. Putnam Mgt. Co., 533 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir.1977).
y American Manufacturers Mut Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting -
Paramount Theaters, Inc., 388 F.2d ' 72, 280 (2d Cir.1976).
i y
See Public Service Co. of New Hamphire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and ?), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
e.
the opponent of such a motion fails to submit evidence controverting the conclusions reached in documents submitted in support of the motion.E In a recent Statement of Policy, the Commission emphasized the availability of summary disposition in appropriate cases, as a means of expediting the hearing process.
In Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (May 27, 1981), the Commission stated a', follows:
In exercising its authority to regulate the course of a hearing the boards should encourage the parties to invoke the summary disposition procedure on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues.
46 Fed. M. at 28535. As was stated previously by the Appeal Board, the summary disposition rule provides "an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time consuming hearings on demonstrably insub-stantial issues." Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550 (1980). As the Appeal Board noted recently, a hearing on each issue raised "is not inevitable," but " wholly depends upon the ability of the intervenors to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact...."
Philcdelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 l
-7/
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., (Perry, Unit s 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 7 NP.C 741, 753-54 (1977).
Courts have, however, granted motions for summary judgment even though certain facts have been disputed when the disputed facts were found not material to the resolution of the legal issues presented.
Riedel v. Atlas Van Lines, 272 F.2d 901, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 942 (1960); Newark Morning 905 (8th Cir.1959) TlTT Supp. 689, 693 (D.N.J.1975); Alundnum Ledger Co. v. U.S.,
Co. of America v. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 166, 175 (N.D. Ill.1972).
and 3), ALAB-654, 14 NRC (Sept.11,1981) (siip. op., at 4). A party cannot avoid summary disposition "'on the mere hope that at trial he will be able t0 discredit movant's evidence,'" nor may a party "'go to trial on the vague supposition that something may turn up.'"
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 NRC 246, 248 (1975), quoting 6 Moore's Federal Practice 9 56.15[3] and
[4].
III.
ARGUMENT Joint Intervenors' Contention II-A alleges that defective welding during their manufacture calls into question the safety of various piping installed at Callaway.
Contention II-A(1) specifically asserts that a substandard piece of ASME Class II SA-358 piping was installed in the emergency core cooling system. The pipe is alleged by the Joint Intervenors to have been "substantially out-of-round, machined below the minimum wall, and [with] rejectable weld defects on the inside of a longitudinal seam weld." For the reasons set forth below, the Staff contends that this contention fails to raise any genuine issue of material fact. The Staff further coricludes that the attached Affidavits of Gordon Beeman, James Foster, and Wiiliam J. Key and the attached Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard, when read together with this motion, show that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
The matter of the allegedly defective SA-358 pipe was first brought to the Staff's attenuon by a phone call made to the NRC's Region III office by a fonner worker at the Callaway site. As
a result of this phone call, an NRC investigator (Robert M. Burton) was sent to the facility. He prepared a report (I&E Report 50-483/80-10) which concluded that "[t]he allegation was not substantiated."
(Page3 of Exhibit 1 to Attachment 1).
The individual who made the original allegation remained dissatified and contacted the Region III office by letter dated February 8,1981.
This letter triggered a second investigation conducted by James Foster.
Mr. Foster documented the results of his investigation in I&E Report 50-483/81-04 (Attachment 1). As detailed in Report 81-04, problems with the pipe were first noticed in April 1979.
(Attachment 1, Report 81-04,
- p. 8). At that time, the Applicant detennined that the thickness of the pipe at a counterbored area was below the specified minimum wall thickness.
Personnel at the site also discovered excessive weld reinforcement on a longitudinal seam.
Two nonconformance reports were then filed. The eventual disposition of neither report required that the pipe be replaced.
The worker who contacted the NRC left his employment at the Callaway site in August 1979.
(Attachment 1, Exhibit V, p. 1).
Apparently dis-satisfied that the pipe had not been removed, he contacted the NRC later that year, and the two investigations mentioned earlier ensued.
The Staff notes that, as a result of the second investigation, Joint Intervenors reported that many of their concerns with this pipe were now satisfactorily addressed.
See Joint Intervenors' Response to Staff Interrogatories, Q-11(c)(3), p. 20 ( Attachment 2).
As the contention nonetheless remains unchanged, the Staff will address all three allega-tions of defects in the SA-358 pipe.
Joint Intervenors contend that the pipe is "substantially out-of-round." Accurate measurements of the ovality of the pipe were taken by Applicant personnel en April 14, 1981. These measurements were witnessed by the Senior Resident Inspector from Region III.
Four different planes were measured; the maximum outside diameter variation turned out to be approximately 0.0920 inches. The standard outside diameter of the pipe is 10.75 inches.
(Foster Affidavit at 2; Attachment 1, Report 81-04, p.16).
The portion of the pipe in question is rated Class 2 by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The ASME code contains no provisions for out-of-roundness of piping other than Class 1.
- However, the Material Specification for ASt1E-358 piping allows an outside diameter variation of 1%, which exceeds the measured variation on the pipe in question. (Beeman Affidavit at 2). Thus, the pipe in question has an outside diameter variation of less than the 1% allowed by the ASME code.
Even if the SA-358 pipe were Class 1 pipe, the degree of outside diameter variation measured here would not lead to the pipe's rejection and would only have a neglible effect on the pipe.
(Beeman Affidavit at 3).
It is alleged that the ripe was machined below the minimum wall.
As indicated previously, the Applicant discovered this fact in April 1979.
The specified minimum thickness of the pipe wall was 0.874 inches, while the actual minimum thickness (found only in the inservice inspection weld area, which had been counterbored) was measured at 0.814 inches.
A nonconformance report was issued and dispositioned by the architect-engineer (Bechtel) as "use-at-is".
The basis for this disposition was the performance by Bechtel of calculations prescribed in ASME Section III, Article NC-3640.
The normal expected pressure and temperature for this
section of piping are approximately 700 pri and 150' F respectively.
Pechtel's two calculations utili ed pressure and temperature figures of 2485 psi /200* F and 24d5 psi /650* F.
The first calculation yielded an allowable minimum wall of 0.711 inches; the second calculation, conserva-tively assuming upstream valve leakage from the reactor coolant system 1
with a resultant increased line temperature, yielded a minimum calculated wall of 0.795 inches.
(Foster Affidavit at 2-3; Attachment 1. Report 81-04, p. 8).
Independent consultants for the NRC reviewed these figures and perfon.1ed their own calculations. They too concluded that the minimum wall thickness of 0.814 inches for this pipe is acceptable. (Beeman Affidavit at 3).
Finally, it is asserted that the pipe contained a rejectable weld defect. As mentioned earlier, Applicant personnel were aware of the excess weld metal. The excess metal was removed or. 'lovrA5er 5,1979, and the remaining weld material was judged to be acceptable.
(Attachment 1, Report 81-04, pp. 9-10). When Mr. Foster conducted his d
insestigation, he and Applicant personnel mutually agreed that a radiograph should be taken of the corrected weld area.
Radiography is a widely accepted method in the industry for determining weld defects. The radio-graph token revealed no defects in the weld.
(Affidavit of William J. Key).
IV.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the NRC Staff believes it is clearly demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the alleged defects in the SA-358 pipe.
Thus, the Staff
.g.
concludes that summary disposition of Contention II-A(1) should be granted in its favor as a matter of law in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 1 9 2.749.
Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Roy P. Lessy Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing C9unsel l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of October,1981.
i 4
_m.. - _.... -
._-_..-,_,.,...,,m.,,,,-.,-...--._--,,,
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS N0 GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD 1.
The SA-358 p'.pe that is the subject of Contention II-A(1) is part of an accumulator discharge line at the Callaway facility.
(Foster Affidavit at 1).
2.
The portion of the line in question is correctly designated as ASME Class 2 and has a design pressure of 700 psi and a design temperature of 150' F.
(Beeman Affidavit at 2).
J.
The pipe was measured by the Applicant with an NRC Senior Resident Inspector present to determine whether the pipe was unacceptably out-of-round.
4.
The measurements, taken in four planes, revealed a raximum outside diameter variation of 0.092G inches.
5.
The pipF has a standard outside diameter of 10.75 inches, 6.
The ASME Code contains no provision for out-of-roundness of Class 2 piping.
7.
The Material Specification for ASME SA-358 piping allows an outside diameter variation of 1%.
8.
The pipe in question has an outside diameter,1riation of less than 1%, falling within the Material Specification for ASME SA-358 piping.
9.
Even if the piping were evaluated as Class 1 pipe, the ovality measured at this pipe would have only a negligible effect on the pipe's allowable stress index.
- 10. The specified minimum wall thickness of the pipe is 0.874 inches.
l
- 11. An actual minimum wall thickness of 0.814 inches was measured in the pipe (in the inservice inspection weld preparation area, which had been counterbored).
- 12. Applicant's architect-engineer (Bechtel) performed calculations as prescribed in ASME Section III, Article NC-3640 to determine whether this actual wall thickness would be acceptable.
- 13. The results of Bechtel's calculations showed that at a pressure of 2485 psi and a temperature of 650 F (well above the design pressure and temperature of the piping in question), a minimum wall cf 0.795 inches would be acceptable.
- 14. NRC consultants performed similar calculations and similarly conclLded that the measured minimum thickness of 0.814 was acceptable.
15.
Excess weld metal was removed from a longitudinal seam weld in November 1979.
- 16. A radiograph of the corrected area was taken in 1981.
- 17. The radiograph revealed no defects in the seam weld.
- 18. There is no reason to believe th-It the SA-358 piping is questionable or defective as alleged by Joint Intertenors.
l
---nn
-~,