ML20028F581
| ML20028F581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302020240 | |
| Download: ML20028F581 (10) | |
Text
__ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._.
=
!ff' ' -
i..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n ,, g _ .,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *1" . r?
23' JAN 31 y; 53 '
In the Matter of '
I I
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES !
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR I ' Docket Nos. 50 I5iji.dNjMe -
I and 50-446 ddM CH AN>0PERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 '
(CPSES) g Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ,
CASE'S REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER Pursuant to,10 CFR 2.206, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy).
Intervenor herein, hereby files this Request for Show Cause Order under 10 CFR_ - -
2.202 for Applicants to show cause why they should not have to provide the Grinnel and NPSI design criteria used for pipe supports / hangers at Comanche '
Peak. CASE maintains that if these documents are not in Applicants' possession onsite, Applicants' failure to possess th'ese documents onsite is a violation ,
of HRC regulations, specifically 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B.
P BACKGROUND
' 4 On August 9,1982, CASE filed its Twelfth Set of Interrogatories to Appli-car.ts and Requests to Produce. Included in those Requests to Produce were .
.f
.g certain documents pertaining to ITT Grinnel ~and NPSI pipe supports at Comanche g Peak, as well as other documents. On Friday, August 20, 1982, CASE initiated a conference call between the Board and all parties to request the Board's assistance regarding several matters, including Applicants' objection to certain documents and testimony regarding ITT Grinnel and NPSI pipe supports at, Comanche y Peak. Applicants had asked that several documents brought by Mrs Jack Doyle $
a 5
8302020240 830128 -
- 2' -
s and introduced as a part of Mr. Doyle's deposition, as well as Mr. Doyle's testimony in that regard during the deposition, be stricken from the record of the deposition insofar' as it concerned ITT Grinnel and NPSI design criteria.
Applicants' purported reason for this was that ITT Grinnell and NPSI pipe support design criteria are proprietary information.
On August 24, 1982, CASE received Applicants' Responses to CASE's Twelfth and Thirteenth Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce. In those re-sponses, Applicants stated regarding CASE's requests regarding ITT Grinnel, NPSI, Hilti bolts, and Richn$ond Inserts, as set forth in CASE's Twelfth Set:
Question: "9. Provide for inspection and copying the NPSI Design Criteria for pipe supports (the o' ficial one issued in May,1981)."
Response: " Applicants do not possess a copy of this document.
CASE should submit a request directly to NPSI at the following address: -
- NPS Industries, Inc.
One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, N.J. 07094" Question: "10. Provide for inspection and copying all documents (in the broad sense of the word, including but not limited to: internal memoranda, papers, letters, handwritten notes, etc.) which were used to define the method used to determine the tensile force in the Richmond Inserts."
Response: "The only information in Applicants' possession regarding this topic is contained in the PSE Design Manual. See Response to Question 15. Any further infornation CASE seeks on this topic must be requested directly from NPSI or ITT Grinnel."
Question: "12. Provide for inspection and copying the current Grinnell, Design Criteria for pipe supports at CPSES."
Response: " Applicants do not possess a copy of this document. CASE should submit a request directly to ITT Grinnel at the follow-ing address: ,
ITT Grinn'el Corporation ~
260 W. Exchange St.
Providence, R.I. 02901"
~
Question: "16. Provide for inspection and copying a copy of the Hilti allowables and the procedures for the analysis."
9
- L
.. ,[t
't t,
i Response: "To the extent this information is within Applicants' possession, t it is set forth in the PSE Design Manual. See Response to E Question 15. If CASE seeks any further infomation on this [
topic it.should contact directly NPSI or ITT Grinnel." [
t Question: "17. Provide for inspection and copying a copy of FUB II and I the instructions of how to use the FUB II infomation (i.e., [
the entire procedure for using all of the information off of i FUB II) to determine the capacity of the Hilti bolt." t Response: " Applicants do not possess this information. CASE should .
request the infomation directly from ITT Grinnel." j 10 CFR 2.731(d) states regarding the production of documents: l t
"The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that -
inspection and related activities will be pemitted as requested, unless [
the request is objected to, ir which case the reasons for objection shall I be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part i shall be specified." !
5 It should be noted that, despite their verbal statements in the August 20 t telephone conference call, Applicants did .no_t object to supplying the requested h i
infomation in their written responses to CASE's requests for documents; they [
merely stated that they did not possess the information sought. There was no i
indication whatsoever in their written responses that the information sought i t
was of a proprietary nature. j This issue was raised in CASE's 8/26/82 Motion to Add New Contention 26, f i
which the Licensing Board denied. In the NRC Staff's Answer to CASE's Motion i to Add New Contention dated 9/10/82, the Staff stated: -
t "If CASE believes that a failure to possess these documents on-site is
a violation of the regulations or the provisions of the construction .
permits, CASE may request, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206...the Director of ;
, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to institute a 10 CFR 2.202 I show cause proceeding against the Applicants."
As indicated in CASE's 8/26/82 Motion to Add New Contention 26, this is precisely what we believe. The proposed contention was:
" Applicants do not possess copies of the design criteria for pipe support systems and components used at CPSES. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, cannot be met."
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q
_4- 1
,i ,
i REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED BY APPLICA_NTS:
10 CFR-Part 50, Appendix B -- Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power
, Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, states, in part: -
"This. appendix establishes quality assurance requirements for the design, construction, and operation of those structures, systems, and components.
The pertinent requirements of this appendix apply to all activities affect-ing the safety-related functions of those structures, systems, and compo-nents; ihipping, these activities storing, include cleaning, designing, purchasing, fabricating, handling..
erdttT 4
operating, maintaining, repairing,refueling, n, in.stallinc , inspecting, testing, anc modifying.
i "As used in this appendix, ' quality assurance' comprises all those planned
^
and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in service.
Quality assurance includes quality control, which comprises those quality assurance actions related to the physical characteristics of a material, structure, component, or system which provide a means to control the quality requirements. of the material, structure, component, or system to predetermined
+
i "I. Organization ]
- "The applicantl shall_ be responsible for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance program. The applicant may delegate to others, such as contractors, agents, or consultants, the work of. establishing -
and executing the quality assurance program, or any part thereof, but shall retain respons_ibility therefor. The authority and duties of persons
~
ind organizations performing activities affecting the safety-related functions of structures, systems, and components shall be clearly established and delineated in writing. ..
"II. Quality Assurance Program >
i "
i ... Activities affecting quality shall be accomplished under suitably con-trolled conditions.
Controlled conditions include... assurance that all prerequisites for the given activity have _been satisfied. The program '
shall take into account the need for special control", ~ocesses, test equipment, tools, and skills to attain the required W, t, and the need, for verification of quality by inspection and tect. The ;eogram shall e provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure tnat suitable proficiency is ?
C y achieved and maintained... *
"I
- of...These criteria will also be used for guidance in evaluating the adequacy quality assurance operating licenses." programs in use by holders of construction pennits and
- ;
4 d
I
.,- "III. Design Control
" Measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory require-ments and the design. basis, as defined in paragraph 50.2 and as specified in the license application, for those structures, systems, and components to which this appendix applies are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. These measures shall include pro-visions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified and in-cluded in~ design documents and that deviations from such standards are con-trolled. Measures shall also be established for the selection and review for suitability of application of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are e-sential to the safety-related functions of the structures, systems and ccmponents.
" Measures shall be stablished for the identification and control of design interfaces and for coordination among part;cipating design organizations, These measures shall include the establishment of procedures among parti-cipating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distri-bution, and revision of documents involving design interfaces.
"The design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program. The verifying or checking process shall be performed by individuals or groups other than those who performed the ;
original design, but who may be from the same organizations. Where a test program is used to verify the adequacy of a specific design feature in lieu of other verifying or checking processes, it shall include suitable quali-fication . testing of a prototype unit under the most adverse design condi-tions. Design control measures shall be applied to items such as the following: reactor physics, stress, thermal, hydraulic, and accident analyses; compatibility of materials; accessibility for Inservice inspection, maintenance, and repair; and delineation of acceptance criteria for inspections and tests. --
" Design changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design and be approved by the organization that performed the original design unless the applicant designates another responsible organization.
"V. Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings . .
" Activities affecting quality shall. be prescribed by documented instructions, ':
procedures, or frawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures or drawings shall include appro-priate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining '
that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
"VI. Document Control
" Measures shall be established to control the issuance of documents, such '
as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, which
=
-- - - ^ ' -
~~ ' "~' ' '
prescribe all activities affecting quality. These measures shall assure that documents, including changes _, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel and are distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed...
"XI. Test Control "A test program shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satis-factorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents...
"XV. Nonconfonning Materials, Parts, or Components
" Measures shall be established to control materials, parts, or components which do not confonn to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation...
"XVI. Corrective Action
" Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, dafective material and equipment, and non-confonnances are promptly identified and corrected.
- In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective. action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported -to appropriate levels of management.
" XVII . Quality Assurance Records
" Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality. The records shall include at least the following:
Operating logs and the results of reviews, insiiections, tests, audits, monitoring of work performance, and materials analyses. The records shall also include closely-related data such as qualifications of personnel, procedures, and equipment... Records shall be identifiable and retrievable.
Consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, the applicant shall establish requirements concerning record retention, such as duration, .
location, and assigned responsibility..."
-- (Emphases added) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, states in part:
" CRITERIA "I. Overall Requirements
" Criterion 1 -- Quality standards and records... Appropriate records of the design, fabrication, arection, and testing of structures, systems, and com-ponents important to safety shall be maintained by or under the control of the nuclear power unit licensee throughout the life of the unit."
-- (Emphases added)
- $55, ?5~. .s s a.:;.
. 0 DISCUSSION Following the filing of our 8/26/82 Motion to Add New Contention 26, the Licensing Board denied CASE's Motion (tr. 5176-5177); there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the matter (tr. 5030-5033,5311-6321). It now appears that CASE should probably have filed this instant pleading rather than the 8/26/82
~
Motion to begin with; however, due to our unfamiliarity with some of the NRC regulations, we filed what we believed to be applicable at the time. Although 4
there is conflicting testimony and statements in the record regarding whether or not the design criteria is actually onsite, and there is some question in CASE's mind regarding whether or not it is actually proprietary2 , it appears that filing this instant pleading is now the proper course to take.
There has now been additional information pertinent to this matter since the time of the September 1982 hearings. There has been testimony that there are major design problems with pipe supports / hangers which may jeopardize the public health and safety by CASE witness Jack Doyle (tr. 3620-4012,4706-4761),
'in addition to the testimony in the July hearings in this regard by CASE witness Mark Walsh. There has been rebuttal testimony by Applicants' witnesses (tr.
4768-4837,4878-5175,5183-5307) and the aborted rebutt'al testimony by NRC Staff witnesses (tr. 5323-5396) andsubsequentdiscussions(tr. 5397-5427).
There is much in the testimony in the September hearings which is supportive of CASE's instani! pleading. For example: Applicants' witnesses have admitted, that some of the pipe supports are or may be unstable (tr. 4943, 4947, 4951) and 2
As indicated on page 3 herein, in their sworn response to CASE's Twelfth and Thirteenth Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Applicants merely stated that they-did not possess the information sought; there was no indi-cation in that answer that the information sought was of a proprietary nature.
Representations were made by Applicants' counsel that it was proprietary, both during the deposition of Jack Doyle and the subsequent conference calls and again in the operating license hearings (tr. 5031-5032); however, the Licensing Board has stated that "here as elsewhere we do not consider statements of counsal, whether oral or in briefs r. other filings, as constituting evidence" (Licensing Board's January .4,1983 Memorandum and Order, page 5, Footnote 11) . '
.. that Applicants have been aware that this type of problem existed since March of 1981 (tr.' '4947-4948) . Yet Applicants apparently do not intend to address the problem or take corrective action to assure that it is not repeated until it is taken care of at "as-built" (tr. 4821-4822, 4827-4830, etc.). This is clearly contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Sections III, XV, and especially XVI, at a minimum. We will be addressing further the many other examples when we file Findings of Fact regarding the Walsh/Doyle allegations.
On October 1,1982, CASE wrote Grinr 1 and NPSI requesting the desired-information. We followed this up with phone calls and were told that the letters had been received and that they would be acted on soon; we were promised that both companies would have someone call us back right away. We followed up with several other calls and were unable to either speak to anyone who was knowledge-
^
able about the matter because they were out of town, in a meeting, out of the office, etc., or to succeed in getting anyone to return our calls although we -
3 left numerous messages . We now feel that we have exhausted our possibilities -
of obtaining the information requested through that source and are therefore filing the instant pleading.
CASE is not attempting in this pleading to get into matters which involve our interpretation of what applicable policies ought to be 4 or to litigate in this forum matters which should be decided in the operating license hearings
! before the Licens'ing Board. However, we believe that it is absolutely essentia.1 that the design criteria and other information we requested on discovery be 1
l brought forward so that the Intervenor and the Licensing Board can have l
3 If further documentation is required, we can supply it.
4 As discussed in the NRC Staff's 9/10/82 Answer to CASE's Motion to Add New t ' Contention, page 7.
9-f the documents in question in order to detemine the true facts regarding this important aspect of the proceedings.
If, as Applicants stated in their Responses to CASE's Twelfth and Thirteenth Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, they do not possess a copy of the documents in question, CASE maintains that they are in violation of the NRC regulations discussed herein. ,
For the reasons set forth in the preceding, CASE requests that the Director issue an Order to Show Cause why Applicants are not in violation of NRC regulations or, in the alternative, why they should not provide the documents requested.
Respectfully submitted, ME_, !EAD (Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446
___..__m
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION N $b
.../.U
~ m.
. gy. .
i In the Matter of. l g.rEn 3 APPLICATION OF . TEXAS UTILITIES i Docket Nos. 50-445 ~ w '*
. GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR I - -
.(.,.
'AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR - I and 50-446 *83 g 3I All:3g C(MANCHE. PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC l e.
STATION UNITS #1 AND'#2 (CPSES) l i
. Mc%.u, e 2;.,; . Mi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Bi$r$Cfqw W
,. .3 D^
By ny signature below, I hereby certify. that true and correct copies of - .i.
CASE S REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER -
f..
have been sent to the names listed below this 28th day of by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Januarv , 198,3_ . $hhH . .' .-.
- Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 ..
,; Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C.. 20555 g
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean *Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member X m Division of Engineering, Architecture, Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal.. Board * -
and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission d' Oklahoma'.. Technology State University Washin,1 ton, D. C. 20555 ' /Wl, .:i Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 1 -4
- Thomas S. Moore, Esq. , Member . y.
- Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ...
Atomic Safety and Licensing Baard U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . -
Q U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 >[-'..
^
Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel _ c, Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission +.
Debevoise & Liberman Washington, D. C. 20555 -
1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Docieting and Service Section- .
Office of the Secretary .
Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 .., -
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 *Ms. Lucinda Minton, Law Clerk l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ranel 1;-
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiss'ion "
Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 .s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ,
David J. Preister, Esq. - ~
Washington, D. C.- 20555 . .
Assistant Attorney General *
- Director, Office of Inspection and Environmental Protection Division -
Enforcement P. O. Box 12548, Capi tol, Station -
f.. i .
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Austin, Texas 78711 ,
. Washington, D. C. 20555 John Collins, Regional Administrator, Region.lIV" U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com@lssion -
611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 ' -
o Arlington, TX 76011 . .... i l
'0/a4ta._L.$8 JMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President of CASE
_. . . . - .