ML20011A464
| ML20011A464 | |
| 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 8110130443 | |
| Download: ML20011A464 (12) | |
Text
3 10/7/81 UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Util0N ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-483 OL (Callaway Plant, Unit 1
)
NRC STAFF MOTI0ft FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITI0rl 0F JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION I-A,
I.
INTRODUCTION In the Special Prehearing Conference Order of April 21, 1981, the Licensing Board admitted Joint Intervenors' Contention I-A which alleged under the heading o' Failure of the Quality Assurance Program:
I.
SUBSTANDARD REINFORCED CONCRETE C0l4STRUCT!0N A.
Embedded Plates Embedded plates, or euceds, so called because they are embedded in concrete, are fixtures installed in concrete walls to sup,mrt the ends of load-bearing steel bM as, piping and other structures. The plates are made of steel with short steel studs welded to one face, like the bristles of a brush.
They are mounted flush with the wall surface, with the studs extending into the concreta.
The exposed surf aces of the plates serve as point of attachment for girders ar.d other structural members.
If an embedded plate tears loose from a wall, the result could be the collapse of an entire floor, breakage of critical pipes in the primary and emerency core cooling systems, and even core melt-down (Class 9 accident).
When the Callaway Plant was approximately five and one-half to seven percent complete, a stop-work crder was issued on June 9,1977, when it was discovered that some of the studs were not properly
%koko o
p G
J
t welded to the embedded plates.
(See NRC Report No.
50-483/77-10, p. 8). Prior to June 9, 1977, 480 plates had been irstalled in the plant.
(See NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, p. 4). The NRC and the Applicant do not know how many of those 480 plates contain faulty welds, they do not know where those plates are located in the plant, they do not know what loads each plate must bear, and they do not know what the consequences of plate failure would be to the safe operation of the plant and to the health and safety of the public. (See, ge.., NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, Attachment A - Item 17, pp. 4-5 and Attachment B - item 17, pp. 5-6.
The Applicant and NRC Staff do know that after the June 1977 stop-work order, many unused plates had to be repaired (See NRC Report No. 50-483/77-10,p.
- 8) or were returned to the manufacturer. There is evidence of multiple defects on some plates.
(See NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, Attachment B, p. 3).
Although it is not known whether the manufacturer inspected the plates before shipping them to Callaway (See NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, p. 2), none of the 480 installed
.olates were removed and reinspected, and, none were repaired or replaced.
During the process of evaluating the question whether the embedded plates presented a safety-significant problem, the Applicant improperly determined, with the NRC's apparent approval, that certain exceptions to structural welding code standards would be tolerated.
(See, e a, NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, pp. 7-10.
We contend that inu Squate and incomplete inspection and testing were performed.
Omissions include the failure to conduct live-load tests and the failure to consider whether defective plates could withstand the effects of an earthquake as per 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A Section VI.
The NRC Staff asserts that Contention I-A presents no genuine issue of material fact and that the Staff is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
Section II of this pleading will discuss generally the law ap-plicable to motions for summary disposition.
Section III will set forth i
I
the Staff's reasons for concluding that Contention I-A raises no genuine issue of caterial fact. Attached to this motion is the Affidavit of Eugene J. Gallagher and the Statemeat of Material Facts as to Which There t
Is No Genuine Issue to be Heard.
II. GENERAL P0INTS 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 to any material fact and that the novant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.749.
As the Commission's E_smary disposition rule is analogous to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (summary judgment), Federal court i
decisions interpreting Rule 56 may be relied on for an understanding cf 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."2/ To meet this burden, the movant must eliminate any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of raterial fact.3/ To further this goal, the summary disposition rule provides that all material facts, set out in the statement mandatorily l
1/
Aiabe:4 Power Company (Joseph M. Farley, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
t 2/
See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-433, 6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977).
3/
Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 368 U.S. 464, 468 (1962);
Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944).
l l
l l
.~
4-accompanying summary disposition motions, will be deemed to be admitted I
unless controverted by the opposing party.
10 C.F.R. b 2.749(a).
Any other party may serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion for summary disposition.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a).
Attached ta a motion opposing summary disposition must be a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be heard.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(a). A material fact is one which may affect the outcome of the litigation.d/
i The opposino party need not show tnat it would prevail on the issues, but only tr,at there are genuine material issues to be tried.E/ Furthermore, the record and affidavits supporting and opposing the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party cpposing the motiort.5/
Finally, the proponent of a motion for summary disposition must meet its burden of establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law 4/
Mutual Fund Investors, Inc. v. Putnam Mgt. Co., 533 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 1977).
j/
American funufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amer 1cin Broadcasting -
Paramount Theaters, Inc., 388 F.2d 272, 280 (2d Cir.1976).
p/
See Public Service Co. of New Hamphire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877 (1974).
1 1
e r-aw-n-r,-
--,e--eg n,
v---,r,-
r a
,w--,--
c-.
c w,-~-
even if the opponent of such a motion fails to submit evidence contro-verting 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 dispesition in appropriate cases, as a means of expediting the hearing process.
Ir Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 46 Fed. RS. 28533 (May 27, 1981), the Commission stated as follows:
In exercising its authority to regulate the course of a hearing, the bocrds 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. Rg. at 28535. As was statec previously by the Appeal Bot 4 the summary disposition rule provides "an efficacious meus 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 4
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 isst,e of material fact...."
-7/
Cleveland Elect-ic Illuminating Co., (Perry, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-443, 7 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977).
Courts have, hcwever, granted notfons for summary judgment even though certain facts have been disputed when the disputed facts were found not material to the resolution of the legal issr ; presented.
Riedel v. Atlas Van Lines, 272 F. 2d 901, 905 (b.h Cir. 1959). cert. denied, 362 U.S.
942 (1950); Newark fiorning Ledger Co. v. U.S., 41TT Tupp. 689, 693 (D.N.J.1975); Aluminum Co. of America v. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., 342 F. Supp.166,175 (N.D. Ill.1972).
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Static,n, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-654, 14 NRC (Sept.11,1981) (slip. op., at 4). A party cannot avoid summary disposition "'on the mere hope that at trial he will be able to 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-15-10, 1NRC246,248(1975), quoting 6 Moore's Federal Practice 5 56.15[3] and
[4].
III.
APGUMENT Joint Intervenors' Contention I-A asserts that 480 potentially defective embedded plates have been placed in concrete at the Callaway facility. The contention further asserts that inadequate inspection and testing were performed to determine whei.her the installed plates present a safety problem and that certain exceptions to welding code standards were improperly tolerated.
Foi the reasons set forth below, the Staff concludes that this contentior, fails to raise ay genuine issue of material fact. The Staff further concludes that the attached Affidavit I
of Eugene J. Gallagher 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.
Embedded plates are steel plate] embedded in concrete. The plates serve as supports for piping, electrical conduits and cable trays, HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) components, and structural steel framing. They are attached tc concrete walls by means of studs
. affixed to one side of the plate. The studs are welded to the plates in accordance with the American Welding Society (AWS) Code either manually or by automatically-timed welding machines. The plates are arranged in place before the concrete is poured, and the concrete then sets around the studs.
On June 9,1977, an NRC inspector re-forming a routine inspection at the Callaway site discovered embedded plates with machine-welded studs that dis m't contain full 360 degree weld (flash) material and had not been *;end tested as required by AWS Code D1.1-75 (Part F).
(Gallagher Affidavit,16). As a result of this inspection, Union Electric issued two "stop work" orders which prevented further concrete placement with e.nbedded plates and restricted the transfer of plates from the supplier's plant to the construction site until an investiga-tion could be completed.
Prior to June 9, a total of 480 plates were embedded in concrete.
255 of these plates utilized machine-wc!ced stcds; 225 utilized manually-welded studs.
(Id., 1 7).
Following the discovery that some plates were supplied with I
insufficient weld material on machine-welded studs, Applicant's architect-engineer (Bechtel) initiated a 100% re-inspection program with Cives Steel (the manafacturer of the plates) of all the uninstalled plates at the Callway site and of those still et the factory. The inspection was conducted by representatives of Union Electric, Bechtel, and Daniel Ccnstruction.
It included an examination of all manually-welded studs as weil as all machine-welded studs.
(Gallagher,1 8).
t,
The results of the inspection showed that out of 81,643 machine-welded studs, only 66 (approximately 0.08%) failed the AWS bend test.U lhe Staff considers this rate of defects extieb.cly low and not indicative of inadequate quality control during fabrication of the plates. All 66 defective studs were subsequently repaired.
The inspection also revealed that certain of the manually-welded studs contained welds with visual defects. These defects were all corrected.
(Gallagher, 11 9, 10).
In addition to this 100% re-inspection, the NRC requested that some actual testing of the plates be done se as to provide assurance that the plates embedded prior to June 1977 would perform their intended function.
Tests of manually-welded studs with visual defects were conducted at Lehigh University. Six such studs were bend tested to thirty degrees and six were tensile tested. None of these visually-defective welds failed.
(Gallagher,1 11). To determiae the adequacy of the machine-welded plates., six of the previously embedded plates with machine-welded studs were randomly selected and tension tested to design load conditions.
All six plates demonstrated acceptable behavior.
(Gallagher, 1 12).
The reinspection and testing of the plates were reviewed and evaluated by the Staf f.
The results of the Staff's evaluation are contained in NRC Report No. 50-483/80-14, a copy of which is attached hereto 8_/
All the stuu were visually inspected. Those that sNeed less than a full 360 degree weld were then bend tested as specitied in AWS Code D1.1-75 (Part F). The AWS Code directs that studs be bent fifteen degrees in the direction opposite to the gap in the weld.
If cracking (or breakage) of the weld occurs, repairs are indicated.
If no cracking occurs, the weld can be left as is.
(Attachment 1).
In the Staff's view, the results of the re-inspection and testing provide adequate assurance that the plates installed before June 9,1977 will not fail.
Joint Intervenors also complain that exceptions to the structural welding code ( AWS D1.1-75) were improperly tolerated. Joint Intervenors do not appear to allege that the exceptions have any safety significance, 2nd the Staff believes that in fact they have none.
The four exceptions are documented in Section 3.8.3.6.4.3 of the Callaway FSAR ( Attachment ?).E/
The Staff reviewed the proposed exceptions in Report 80-14 (p. 7). As there documented, it is the Staff's view that these exceptions are minor and do not affect either the basic weld design or the capacity of the connection.
(Gallagher,1 14).
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 allegedly defective ensedded plates or the propriety of the authorized exceptions to the AWS welding code standards. Thus, the 9/
As listed there, the exceptions state:
1.
The vertical leg of the weld may be up to 1/16 of an inch smaller than specified in the design drawing.
2.
Unequal legs will be permitted.
3.
Weld profile and convexity requirements for welds need not be imposed.
4.
Undercuts of up to 1/16 of an inch for 10% of the weld length may be permitted.
Staif concludes that sucinary disposition of Contention I-A should be granted in its favor as a matter of law in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749.
Respectfully submitted, h f/
Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff 9 y P. Le sy 0
' eputy Assistant Chief s
Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of October, 1981.
I l
STATEMEl4T OF fiATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS I40 GENUINE ISSUE TO BE q ARD 1.
Embedded plates are steel plates set in concreta to serve as supports for piping, electrical conduits and cable trays, HVAC componer.ts, ar.d structural steel framing. The plates contain scuds on one side which anchor the plates ir, the concrete. These studs are either manually or machine-welded to the plates.
2.
On June 9,197?, an llRC inspector identified embedded plates with machine-welded studs which did not conain a full 360 degree weld and had not been 15 degree bend tested as required by AWS code.
3.
Union Electric immediately suspended further placement of the embedded plates.
Prior to this time, 480 plates had been embedded at the site.
255 of these plates used machine-welded studs; 22r used manually-welded studs.
4.
The Applicant initiated a 100% reinspection program of all the uninstalled plates. As part of this program, every manual and machine weld was examined.
5.
The results of the reinspection program indicated that of 81,643 machine-welded studs, only 66 failed the AWS bend test. This is a failure rate of only 0.08%. Tne failed stads were repaired.
6.
The inspection also revealed that certain of the manually-welded studs contained visual weld defects. These visual defects were all corrected before the affected plates were installed.
7.
The Applicant tested twc!ve of the manually-welded studs with visual weld defects at Lehigh University.
Six of the studs were tensile tested; six were bend tested to 30 degtees.
Even though the studs contained visual weld imperfections, none failed.
t 2-8.
Six of the previously installed plates with machine-welded studs were randomly selected and tension-tested to design load conditions. All performed acceptably.
9.
Tne NRC Staff reviewed and evaluated the inspecties and testing program.
The program provides adequate assurance that the installed plates will not threaten the safe operation of the plant.
- 10. Applicant was granted four exceptions to the AWS code for manual welds. The exceptions are listed in FSAR Section 3.8.3.6.4.3.
)
The exceptions are minor in nature and do not affect either the basic weld design or the capacity of the connection.
i l-t l
I
,a-,,-.,,.w,-.r,.r,,-,
.nc,
,,-en
,,~,.,-m