ML20042B234

Answers to 820226 Third Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20042B234
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/16/1982
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
Shared Package
ML20042B224	List: ML20042B223 ML20042B234
References
NUDOCS 8203250122
Download: ML20042B234 (17)

Text

i

1. s

~

,, g anssPO @.

f

. E:'.cETE]

2

3/16/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p" "' m j o N 58 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the' Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and 50-446' i

AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR b-I' 3

COMANCriE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 i

(CPSES) g CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' THIRD SET f

OF INTERROGATORIES TO CASE AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE e

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b(b), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

g 3

Intervenor herein, hereby submits its Answers to Applicants' Third Set of g

Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce, served February 26, 1982 and received by CASE 3/2/82.

CASE will respond to the Applicants' Request to Produce

.E in this instant pleading as well.

ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' THIRD SET OF INTERR0GATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE 1.

We note that this is the same Question asked in Applicants' First Set to CASE dated August 1,1980, as Question 7.

Our answer is still the same as set forth in our 12/1/80 Supplement to CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce:

"At th.is. time, CASE has not prepared or caused to be prepared any report, f

study, or analysis on which we intend to rely for its position regarding contention 5...

Our present plans are to file testimony, call witnesses, and cross-examine Applicants regarding (this) contention, and to participate.

as fully as possible in the hearings. Who CASE's specific witnesses wil1 be is unknown at this time. When and as such agmements and decisions are made, the Board and all parties will be kept informed in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 2.740(e)."

2.

Same as Applicants' First Set, Question 8, answered in our 12/1/80 Supplement.

Answer is same as in second paragraph of 1. above.

3.

Same as Applicants First Se't, Question 9.b., answered in our 12/1/80 Supple-ment. We have not gone beyond our analysis as pmsented in our 12/1/80 answer at this time. However, we are in the process of making such analysis and will supplement our answer as soon as it is completed.

8203250122 820316

{DRADOCK05000

11,7 q

4.

Same as Applicants' First Set, Question 13.a answered in our 12/1/80 Supplement.

In preparing our answers to the NRC Staff's Fourth' Set, filed yesterday, we assembled the following additional information:

'T's We are in the process of assembling and consolidating documents in this regard and do not yet have it completed. However, we have already ' identified the following and offer it as a partial listing:

f."

in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion No.

Inspection & Enforcement Report No.

?

I 73-02, 74-01

.j, II 73-02, 74-01, 79-11

)

III 73-02, 74-01 j.[

j IV 73-02, 74-01

.Vp V

73-02, 74-01, 75-10, 75-11, 76-01, I

76-08, 76-07, 77-02, 78-05, 78-11,

• ?;

78-12, 78-13, 78-18, 79-03, 79-04, 79-06, 79-07, 80-01, 80-03, 80-08, 1

80-11, 80-13, 80-15, 80-17, 80-20,

'.D 80-23, 81-02, 81-15

~'0.

VI 73-02, 74-01, 75-05, 76-08, 77-10 al

~

VII 73-02, 74-01 IX 77-l0

.2

~

3, l XV 78-12

f XVI 75-13

i:

XVII 73-02, 74-01

,;c XVIII 74-01 ff.:

?/j

5.. We object to this question to the following extent.

Applicants have obviously gone down the list of specific items listed in the contention as presently worded. As Applicants are well aware, the wording of Contention 5 as presently constituted was not CASE's wording.

CASE and the other two Intervenors in these proceedings were initially accepted under the wording "The Applicant has failed to establish and execute a quality assurance /

4 tality control program which adheres to the criteria in 10 CFR 50, App (endix B."

CASE and the other two Intervenors fought ta retain that wording see especially CASE's 5/12/80 Motion in Support of Retaining Present Wording of Quality Assurance / Quality Control -Contention).

.s

5. (continued):

As stated in our 5/12/80 Motic,:

i'

:t '

"The bmadness of CASE's concerns in regard to this contention are W

clearly indicated in our 5/7/79 Contentions (pages 50 through 57), and i

we particularly call the Board's attention to page 57, items 18 and 19, i

~

in which we state:

j

'Non-compliance with mgulations and procedures as detailed in i

the I&E reports supports and confinns Contention No.1.'

.g j

'I&E reports, plus the contentions in Contention No.1, clearly j

indicate a trend which would prove tnat 10 CFR 50.57('a)(2), (3),

and (6) will not be complied with by the applicant. Therefore, i

the CPSES should not be licensed to operate.'

/.

"And on page 54, item 7, we state:

'There are numerous other problems with construction and procedures which are indicated in the I&E reports, and CASE would incorporate them all herewith by reference.

It is our intention to pursue them in detail during the hearings, and to present related testimony by expert witnesses. '"

We then suggested alternative wording for the contention which the Board did not adopt, and further elaborated our concerns:

"As has been previously indicated, CASE very seldom has the benefit of d

any legal advice. We believe that we have made it very clear that there l

are certain specific problems at CPSES with which we are concerned, but in addition, we are concerned as well with the overall impact of such problems, coupled with the manner in which the Applicant has operated its lignite plants and the manner in which we expect them to operate CPSES. All of these things have a bearing and tie-in with the quality assurance /quali ty control contention.'

m "We are concerne.d primarily with the Board's deciding on wording for j

this contention.which accun ately reficcts CASE's concerns and which g

will not limit us (as the Applicant's proposed wording would have) 4 to an extent which would pmclude our pursuing some of these concerns as indicated."

We'therefore object to these questions to the extent that they call for definitions of terms tr identification of specific items which were not originally our terms

s or specific items. However, we will attempt to respond to the best of our ability'.

to all of the questions, based on the analyses we have made at this time and in

'I the context in which we have analyzed them at this time.

It should be noted that.

j we are currently in the process of refining the specific areas with which we will

'I deal in the hearings and the specific approach we will take the the various issues y

with which we are concerned.

j,[

W')

.=

.q 4 5 h

.-l

Qjf 4j 1

d 5.a. Concrete Work:

J.y.

We are currently reviewing the following items fmm. ACORN's and CFUR's

-l.t pleadings; it is our present thinking that althoug'1 the specific wording J-of the centention was not CASE's wording but was tak.n in many instances

'l from pleadings of ACORN and CFUR as well, many of the other two Intervenors' 3

concerns came from I&E reports.

CASE has always said that we intended to di pursue all the I&E Reports in these proceedings. We will therefore adopt rj most of the concerns expressed by ACORN and CFUR as our own, since they do 1

indeed supplement and support many of our own concerns.

Ai 9

From the 5/7/79 Supplemental Petition and Contentions of Intervenors, ACORN, 2

Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, pages 15,16, and 17, items j

31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38.

w 3

From CFUR's 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens y

for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), pages 13, 14, 15 and 16, item IV.E.

y' d

From the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Contentions

?

by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), pages 50, 53, and 54, items d

1, 2, 4.

'Gq (The above-referenced items are quoted in CASE's 3/15/82 Answers C5-10 to

i NRC Staff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor CASE; we did not

,}

want to mpeat them here since to do so would unnecessarily burden the i:

mcord and since, although pertinent, they are not exactly what you asked

}j for.)

D Since the above was originally written in 1979, the problems with concrete have

}i.

continued at CPSES. These problems have been documented by I&E Reports, including l'

but not limited to the following, which is a sampling of reports over the years:

I&E Report 75-13 -- Failure to Implement Prompt Corrective Action and Provide Adequate Measures to Preclude Repetition Regarding Concrete Aggregates I&E Report 75-10 -- Failure to Adhere to Procedure Requirements Regarding Concrete Placement I&E Report 75-10 -- Failure to Adhere to Procedure Requirements Regarding Con-o crete Transit Mix

}i I&E Report 79-03 -- Failure to Follow Concrete Placement Procedure I&E Report 78-13 -- Failure to Follow Concrete Testing Procedures

- [

I&E Report 78-07 -- Failure to Follow Concrete Testing Procedures O;E I&E Report 80-08 -- Failure to Report a Significant Construction Deficiency

(" honeycombs" in interior walls of Unit II Containment Building) j I&E Report 79-11 -- Failure to Implement the Quality Assurance Program for llj Civil Construction (Placement of an undetermined amount of concrete of an

.g unknown quality on the dome of the Unit 1 containment without the knowledge p

of Applicants' Quality Assurance organization and without benefit of re-2 quired inspections and testing of the concrete)

H I&E Report 79-09 -- Allegations by fomer Comanche Peak employees which 9y appeared in news articles of the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM on April 4, 5, 9

6, and 8,1979 (it was not possible to either substantiate or.mfute jt several of the allegations) if I&E Report 79-09 also included the following infomation on pages 34 and 35:

$h 4 i, :

.Q F

_~

~

s :

y J

4 c

a-: :-i w 4

- ; y

-w

5.a.(continued):

" Referenced NRC Reports dBecause of_the congruity of matters being investigated, the IE Investigation Reports No. 50-445/77-02; 50-446/77-02, dated }brch 23, 1977, and 78-07, dated May 10, 1978, are by reference, an integral pr-t of this report.

In a~ddition.

Che following IE Inspection Reports and corresponding licensee replies are referenced for additional information regarding IE concrete inspection activites:

IE Inspection Report 50-445/75-06; 50-446/75-06, dated April 28, 1975 IE Inspection Report 50-445/75-07; 50-446/75-07, dated' June 11,.1975 IE Inspection Report 50-445/,75-09; 50-446/75-09, dated July 14,:1975 IE Inspection Report 50-445/75-10; 30-446/75-10, dated August 7, 1975 IE Inspect' ion Report 50-445/75-11; 50-446/75-11, dated' August 28, 1975.-

IE Inspection Report 50-445/75-12; 50-446/75-12, dated October 1, 1975 IE Inspection. Report 50-445/75-13; 50-446/75-13, dated December 12, 1975 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-03; 50-446/76-03, dated April 1, 1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-04; 50-446/76-04, dated April 20, 1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-05; 50-446/76-05, dated May 26, 1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-06; 50-446/76-06, dated June 25, 1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-07;.50-446/76-07, dated August 3,1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-08; 50-446/76.-08, dated August 19, 1976 IE Inspection Report 50-445/76-10; 50-446/76-10, dated October 14, 1976 IE' Inspection Report 50-445/76-11; 50-446/76-11, dated November 2, 1977 l

IE Inspecti'on Report 50-445/76-12; 50-446/76-12, dated January 3, 1977 l

IE Inspection Repor* 50-445/77-03; 50-446/77-03, dated March 31, 1977 IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-04; 50-446/77-04, dated May 17, 1977 IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-06; 50-446/77-06, dated May 27, 1977 t

l IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-07; 50-446/77-07, dated ' July 7,1977 IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-09; 50-446/77-09, dated September 6.-1977

.R p.

. [..

5.a.(continued):

>fJ R

Uj IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-10; 50-446/77-10, dated October 18, 197.7 1

't IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-11; 50-446/77-11, dated November 2,1977 j

IE Inspection Report 50-445/78-01; 50-446/78-01, dated January 30~, 1978' y

. yy IE Inspection Report 50-445/78-09; 50-446/78-09, dated June 6, 1978

/d IE Inspection Report 50-445/78-11; 50-446/78-11, dated June 29, 1978 3

IE Inspection Report 50-445/78-13; 50-446/78-13, dated September 18, 1978 l IE Inspection Report 50-445/78-16; 50-446/78-16, dated November 17,19708.j e

I&E Inspection Report 80-01 -- Further information regarding " honeycombs" in

?

interior walls of Unit 11 containment building.

Further removal of the " honey-

~

comb" was suspended pending an in-depth investigation and engineering review

{

since the area and depth appeared to be exceeding expected levels. Applicants utilized the services of a conssitant, Meunow and Associates, to attempt, by microseismic means, to obtain information on the total extent of the

+

problem. According to the statement of the RRI in the inspection report

"...the inicroseismic (sonic) investigative technique is unique to the con-sultant, Mr. Meunow, who developed it and is the only known person able to interpret the oscillographic data obtained." (Emphasis added.)

QN One of the most troubling aspects of the continuing concrete (and other) problems

%f at CPSES, _to CASE, is the tendency of Applicants and NRC Staff to say that Appli-j cants won't do it again, without really thoroughly examining what has already g

been done. Another troubling aspect is the lack of a consistent QA/QC program 3

which allows tracking dcwn each and every problem area back to its roots. And 7

over and above this one particular problem area, our primary and continuing con-i cern is the trend of the type of work being done.at the plant and the continuing y

breakdown of the entire QA/QC program.

4 With regard to Applicants request that we "specify time of occurrence, location i

and specific problem alleged for each practice," we have not made an analysis 4

of this type and in this particular context at this time.

If and when we do,

i we will promptTy supplement our answers, p

We are also in the proce'ss of reviewing audit reports which we recently received I;

frohi the Applicants in response to our interrogatories and requests to produce,

~3 as well as the document " Review of the Quality Assurance Program for the Design i-and Construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station," prepared by F. B.

.s Lobbin, February 4,1982, which we just received yesterday, 3/15/82.

It may well be that we will also find other information in those-documents which are pertinent to this question; however, at this time, we have not fully analyzed

$).

them.

'y y

n a.-

..,t

. j;',

K

~

M.$

q': ;

5.b. Mortar Blocks

'$h We believe the " mortar blocks" referred to in the contention was taken from the

'(.

5/7/79 Supplemental Petition and Contentions of Intervenors, ACORN, Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, pages 16 and 17, items 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and n

38.

(These items were quoted in our 3/15/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, CS-ll.)

W'T' Since these items include problems identified in Inspection and Enforcement Reports, we will be pursuing them as our own; however, we have not made an analysis ati this time which specifically identifies them in groupings by " mortar blocks" c7;.

per se.

.i

'W S_ee_ last three para. graphs of answer 5.a., page 6, of this pleading.

T e

5.c. Steel j

We believe the " steel" mferred to in Contention 5 was taken from the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), pages 11 and 12, item IV.C.

(This item was quoted in our 3/15/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, C5-12.)

J Since this item includes problems identified in Inspection and Enforcement h

Reports, we will be pursuing them as our own; however, we have not made an analysis y

at this time which specifically identifies them in groupings by " steel" per se.

.te, See last three paragraphs of answer 5.a.,page 6, of this pleading.

5.d. Fracture Toughness Testing We believe the " fracture toughness testing" as the phrase is used in the contention came from the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), pages 16 and 17, item IV.

(This item was quoted in our 3/15/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, C5-13.)

This item refers to the agreement between Westinghouse and' Texas Utilities (which we may obtain from CFUR and pursue further) as well as an I&E Report. We will therefom probably pursue it as our own; however, we have not made an analysis at this time which specifically identifies groups as " fracture toughness testing" per se.

See.last three paragraphs of answer 5.a., page 6, of this pleading.

.:l f

5.e. Expansion Joints We believe the " expansion joints" referred to in Contention 5 came from two separate sources about basically the same problem:

From the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation

]'

(CFUR), page 16, item IV.; and from the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Contentions by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Enenjy),

.i,,,

p 4

a-

.. - =..

d _. _

'Alhh

.a If.

a.;

,7*..

5.e.(continued):

3 page 50:

x N

"1.

CASE has been told by a worker at the CPSES that one side of the reactor, where there is supposed to be some room between the contain-ment vessel and the reactor, workers could not get the expansion joints to work correctly and poured concrete in on one side where the expansion

.l joints am supposed to be."

tif h

In CFUR's pleading (which was auoted in our 3/15/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Fourt' Set, C-14), they expmss basically the same concern and specify that it was

.I between the Auxiliary Building and Containment Unit 2 (KA wall and LA wali).

We have not yet discussed this further with CFUR but will probably do so and decide whether and hw best to pursue it. We have not yet made this decision and have not made an analysis at this time which specifically identifies groups

h as " expansion joints" per se.

j

[f See last three paragraphs of answer 5.a., page 6, of this pleading.

i.b 5.f. Placement of the Reactor Vessel for Unit 2 We believe the " placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2" referred to in the -

contention came from:

the 5/7/79 Supplemental Petitien and Contentions of Inter-

_9 venors, ACORN, Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, pages 22 and 23,

..l :

item 58; and from the 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and

.' l Contentions by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), page 54, item 6 11'l and page 23, item 2.

(These were quoted in our 3/15/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, C5-15.)

~

s l.j

. j

" 1

.4 j l

j

?)

.- 1

". I

i 4y

.1-!

i.'l 6}

2

.3

~

j

.R

~

h c

5.f. (continued):

'A"

^

• J As we understand it, basically what happened was that Applicants' response to the problem was to innovatively decide that they would build the support structure 450 away from where it was so that things would line up, even though this is not the way the plant was designed. They then came up with specifications to build

,p the new supports.

.e Before the supports had been completed, an MC inspector came by and decided to take a closer look.

He noted that the hole drilled where the steel bar was to provide structural strength was smaller than the specifications called for. He 1

also inquired as to why Texas Utilities had not reported the additional diffi-

<I culty of the mactor vessel's not fitting to the NRC. The utility reply insofar

~

~

as to why they had not yet reported anything to the NRC was that nothing had actually been installed and therefore there was no " deviation." The utility mply insofar as the undersized hole was that they would have to check that out with their architectfengineer.

The architect / engineer obligingly changed the L

specifications so that the undersized hole was acceptable insofar as specifica-tions were concerned.

q Apparently now everyone (the Applicants and the NRC regulators) was satisfied.

But many other things had to be changed as a result of this misorientation and

-l 1s apparently indicative of similar procedures with other aspects of the plant's construction, whereby if something's not done according to specifications, you simply change the specifications so that everybody's happy = regulation. This is one of the most troubling aspects, to CASE, of the manner in which CPSES has y

been constructed.

3 I The time frame during which this took place is very important:

it was teported j

to the RRI on February 20, 1979, that a major error had been detected in the design of the Unit 2 reactor vessel support structure."2 The work appears to have been completed grior to August 1,1979. However, in I&E Report 80-25 (which, l

according to NRC Staff's answers to our interrogatories, is the "last documented j

'SAPL' (Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance)" which "was conducted at l

l Comanche Peak"}, which covers the period August 1,1979, through July 31, 1980, it was stated:

" Licensee Construction and Engineering Management - The NRC personnel stated that it appears there is a continuing tendency to engineer away construction problems rather than enforce compliance to drawings and specifications."

" Brown and Root Construction Supervision and Labor Force - The NRC participar.ts indicated that their i.mpression of this area indicated that there is a need to. make this group more awam of nuclear power plant construction requirements."

l (Emphases added.)

/

CASE's concern about the misorientation of the mactor pmssure vessel.is shared 5

by others.

It is discussed at some length in House Report No.97-277, October 20 1981, " Licensing Speedup, Safety Delay: NRC Oversight, Ninth Report by the Comittee on Government Operations," prepared by Congressman Toby Moffet's Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcomittee.

A copy of this mport was sent to all parties by CASE with its 11/2/81 Transmittal of Additional Infomatie E

2 See I&E Report 79-03.

i 3

l See page 10 of this pleading.

( -

...:5

5.f.,(continued):

." 9 The report stated regarding Comanche Peak (we have marked the portion pertaining-1

' pecifically to the misorientation problem):

s 25 E. COMANCHE PEAx One more plant not yet disenwd in this Chapter was on theindus-th'y-touted lists of NltC delnv but now is not. exlected to be delayed by tr o licensing pnxvss. That is the Comanche Peak facility being built by Texas Ut.ilities Generating Company. When the Comanche Peak construction l'ennit was issued in Demnber-1971, its projected fuel load date was.Inno 1979."' Since that time, some 30' months of slip-page have abradv occurred based on the utility % official claim that construction willb complete Ih cember 1981. As abrady noted, the.

NRC expects another twelve months of slippnge to be announced by the utility, making total sli any pmjected Nite lelay.""ppage nt least 42 months and eliminating A brief look at the Comanche Peak history discloses a sadly famil-iar sagii of construction, financial and safety problems. Texas Gen-erating's schedule has nhvaily been altered four times, beginning in 1976, again in 1977, in late 1979 and in 1980. In 1977, " rescheduled commercial operation" was given as a reason. No official reason was reported to the NRC for the other schedule revisions."'

NRC documents on Comanche Peak show far more than those cryptic entrice however. Comnnche Peak has leen plagued by con-stnict. ion problem < ivminiscent. of the Marble Ifill and Zimmer dif-ficulties.14 aulty welding practices resulted in the rewelding of some 60 percent of the safety related welds at one point in the construction."'

Poor quality concerte with excessive "honeycornhing" (hole and por-ousness in the concrete that weaken it.) have rvquirvd extensive re-work. In one instance, concirle of unknown and untested quality was lunnvd on flie iloine of Ihe cosit:iinitient buildirig without proper in-spection."".NltC inspectors diwovered that Brown & Root, the build-

- -m ing contractor. Inul excessive!v blasted with dynamito and "over-hmken" the Irdrock amund tha foundation perinleter."' The bedrock was intended to be the solid fonmlation for the containment and the reactor. That. constnietion error n quim ndditional crete work to n pair an I resolidifv the foundation.'" grouting and con-A particularly f ronblesome unit costly construction error was made by Texas Generating and its contractors at. the Comanche Peak-site in early 1979. Simply Imt, a mnjor misrending of the design for Unit 2 resultdd in the support structures for the reactor being. built in the l

wrong place."' It should im noted that this costly and ultnnately time-consuming error by the utility and its contractors occurred on Unit 9, t

not on Unit 1. It is the latter nnit which the indnctry has alleged was leing delayed by the NRC. The n.nlities of nuclear powerplant con-strnetion, however, are that major add:tional workloads on the build-ing contractors, design engineers and top management of the utility-from whatever part of the overall project-inevitably contribute to the total co'nstruction burden and difficulty of meeting time and cost l

l t]11 artngs, at Appendtr. answer 2B attachment.

• Id.

m rhin disrunelon of the Comanche Peak caw riemen fenn NRE' in=pectLon and Enforce-megt oeumenta la that licensing cow. NaC docket No. 50-445 and 50-441.

m id.

tas id.

ase gd.

.[

.E 6_ _

,.c,.

s T ~ ~ ~

s 4

e.mme,

'9

..)?.

A.

d.

.1 i

_f:

5.f. (continued):

i 26 tion error,in March 1979: schedules as this case demonstrates. The NRC reported t It had been determined that the reactor vessel support shoes, their ventilation duct work, and the surrounding rein-forcing steel had been rotated farty-five degrees from the cor-rect position through a design error. As a result of the error, the reactor vessel would not match the vessel support feet nor would the ponents.= piping system to the other reactor loop com-Major design and construction changes were of course required to correct the error. Not only did new structures have to be built so that

-a the reactor could fit into plaec and all the piping would fit, it was also

?

necessary to build additional su actor in the right places. Again,pport structures to support the re-as the NRC de. scribed the process laterin March 1979:

The reactor vessel concrete support st ructure is misoriented approximately forty-five degrees. By design, the reinforcing steel, which supports the reactor vessel sapport plates is of a greater design strength than the reinforemg st el w'hich is beneath the unsupported reactor vessel nozzles. Therefore, there will be a loss of shear strength in those areas where the concrete base for the steel support plates are to be relocated.

Hence, the design repairs have centered on the placement of

/

additional shear reinforcement in the areas where the steel support plates are to be relocated."'

In addition to causing direct delays in construction this misalign-I ment error has fueled the ardor o'f those citizens living near the Comanche Peak site who have intervened in the case because they hnvo some doubt about the competence of the utility and its con-tractors."'

In sum, the Committee review of those plants other than Diablo Canyon which tho industry has claimed were being delayed by the

~

NRd shows either that they are not being delayed by the NRC or that any delav is minimal, particularly in comparison to the extensive de-i lays attribut:.ble to the utilities th'em# elves and to the nuclenr market-place. Diablo Canyon!s two units stand as the one example worthy of somo further examination where the NHC can be said to be the source i,

of " delay." The bases'for that NRC delay, however, are far from spu-rious, as the Committee itview shows.

g g

.e "h

m Id.

is' 14.

['

• The competence of Brow *t & Root as a nuclear constructor han also been examined in the context of the South Texas Project to Heartoce before the overstabt and lavcatisations Bobcommittee of the House Energy and Cornmerce Comrnittee. 96th Cong. 2d sees, m

V

'?

EU 1;;.

t 5

.E

=

l 4.Q dj

• L 5.f. (continued):

.4 The misalignment error is symptomatic of a much broader and all-encompassing problem, CASE believes -- the complete breakdown of the quality assurance / quality control program at Comanche Peak.

It raises grave questions about the way the plant has been built and about the ability of the Applicants to construct and operate the plant safely.

Further, and equally important, it raises grave doubts about the NRC's regulatory functions and abilities to protect the public health and safety as they are mandated to do.

How can the NRC now say that everything's fl.ne at CPSES when, by its own statements in its own regional evaluation (the last documented Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance), "it appears there is a continuing tendency to engineer away construction problems rather than enforce compliance to drawings and specifications," and "there is a need to make this group (Brown and Root Construction Supervision and Labor Force) more awam of nuclear power plant construction requirements"? What about the work which was done prior to what we assume the NRC believes to be the discontinuance of the " continuing' tendency to engineer away construction problems" and the making aware of the Brown and Root Construction Supervision and Labor Force of nuclear power plant construction requirements?

(It should be pointed out that thers is no documenta-tion at this time that these problems have actually been solved, since according to the NRC Staff's own answers to our interrogatories, the October 30, 1980, NRC mgional evaluation is the last documented Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance. )

See last three paragraphs on page 6 of this pleading.

5.g. We believe the " welding" referred to in the contention came from:

The 5/7/79 Supplemental Petition and Contentions of Intervenors, ACORN, Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, page 17, items 37 and 38.

The 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), pages 9,10, and 11, item IV.B.

The 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Contentions by CASE (Citizens Association 'for Sound Energy), pages 50, 51, 52, and 53, item 3.

j i

The preceding were quoted in CASE's 3/15/82 Answers to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, C5-16.

Since the pmceding was ' written, the problems with welding at CPSES have not ceased.

It should also be noted that in response to CASE's 12/4/80 Third Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, the following responses were received:

" Question ll.c. : Is it the standard modus operandi for work being done on the

~

containment wall about 160' above the ground to be done with no scaffolding?

" Answe r: Yes.

Although work platforms and safety belts are provided, it is comon for work to be accomplished within the confines of the rebar without scaffolding.

5.g. (continued):

" Question ll.f. : Was the ' procedure referenced in c. above the practice at the

- time that similar work was done on the Unit 2 containment wall?

"Answe':

Yes.

r "ll. g.' :

Is it the standard modus operandi for work being done on the contain-ment wall about 150' above.the ground to be done with only site area lighting available?

" Answer:

Yes.

However, area lighting is normally supplemented by lighting mounted on a work platform at the surface of the concrete, which in the subject situation, was,approximately 60 feet below the level of the cadwelds.

In a small percentage of the cadwelding activities (such as the subject situation) flashlights are also used to better light the work area.

"11.j.: Was the procedure reference in g. above the practice at the time that similar work was done on thetunit 2 containment wall?

" Answer.

Yes.

"ll.k: Is it the standard modus operandi for splice setup work being done on the containment' wall about -150' above the ground to be done with the aid of flashlights?

" Answer: Yes, as explained above in response to interrogatory 11.g.

"ll.n.:

Was the procedure referenced in k. above the practice at the time 1--

that similar work was done on the Unit 2 containment wall?

" Answer: Yes.

"ll.o. :

Is it the standard modus operandi for work being done on the contain l

ment wall about 150' above the ground to be inspected with a penlight?

" Answer:

Penlights are furnished tio inspectors to aid. inspection efforts in areas where supplemental lighting may be necessary.

"ll.r. : Was the procedure reference in o. above the practice at the time that simila'r work was done on the Unit 2 containm2nt wall?

l

," Answer.

Yes."

Problems with welding have been documented by I&E Reports, including but not limited to the following:

I&E Report, NRC Inspections on August 21-25, 1978 -- Failure to Follow Welding i

Procedures I&E Report, NRC Inspections on August 21-25, 1978 -- Failure to Follow. Weld Monitoring Procedures l

I&E Report 78-18 -- Failure to Follow Welding Procedures j

l I&E Report 78-12 -- Failure to Follow Welding Procedure i

.I&E Report 77-10 -- Failure to Remove weld Surface Defect Prior to Final Acceptance.

l

. 8

5.g. (continued):

I&E Report 77-10 -- Failure to Provide Welding Proced'ures at the Location Where the Prescribed Activity Is Perforced I&E Report 76-07 -- Failure to Follow Procedures for Welding of Safety Related Components I&E Report 76-07 -- Failure of QA Supervisor to Exercise Delegated Stop-Work Authority Regarding Welding of Safety Related Components I&E Report 80-01 -- Failure to Provide Instructions and Procedures Appropriate to the Circumstances (Instructions and Procedures Provided for Securing Class IE Battery Chargers to the Building Structure Are Inappropriate to the Circumstance in the 8 3/8" fillet welds were required; it is impossible to achieve the required fillet weld size for four' of these weld locations because material thickness is less than.200 inches; the 4 welds do not confonn to required thickness for 3/8" fillct weld; weld-ing was accepted by site QC even though welds could not be made in the manner required.)

IhE Report 80-13 -- Failure to Follow Welding Procedure I&E Report 80-20 -- Unsuitable Weld Surface Condition as Required by Magnetic Particle Test Procedures I&E Report 80-18 -- Failure to Report a Significant Construction Deficiency (Nearly 200 welds in safety-related piping systems reported as being undersized (and therefore presumably under-strength) were not reported to NRC)

I&E Report 80-17 -- Failure to Follow Drawing for Weld Prep Details (counger-0 and 330 instead of maximum angle of 10 )

bore transition taper was 30 I&E Report 80-25, the last documented SALP which was conducted at Comanche Peak, covering the period August 1,1979, thmugh July 31, 1980, also has pertinent infonnation regarding welding problems.

SEE last three paragraphs of page 6 of this pleading.

5.h. Since this was not our wording, we are not certain exactly where the wording l

" inspection and testing" came from.

However, in the context of the contention as we view it, the inspection and testing pertains to all areas of the QA/QC program.

Reference was made in this regard in the following:

The 5/7/79 Supplemental Petition and Contentions of Intervenors, ALORN, Mary and Clyde Bishop and Oda and William Wood, pages 16 and 17, items 35 and 36.

The Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), pages 4 through 9, items IV and IV.A.

The 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene an' Contentions by d

CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), after going through the specific items already quoted therein, on page 54, item 7.

I j

The preceding wem quoted in CASE's 3/15/82 Answers to NRC Staff's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to CASE, C5-17.

In the almost thme years since the preceding was written, there have been con-tinuing problems with construction at CPSES and with the QA/QC at the p.lant.

See last three paragraphs on page 6 of this pleading.

~.

5.1. We are not certain, since this was not our wording, exactly where the specific wording " materials used" came from. However, there are specific instances where questions have been raised in I&E reports about the materials used. We have not at this time identified these reports in this context.

See last two paragraphs of page 6 of this ple'ading.

5.J. We believe that the wording " craft labor qualf fications and working condi-tions (as they may affect QA/QC)" refernced in the contention came from:

The 5/7/79 Supplemental Petition and Contentions of Intervenors, ACORN, Mary and Clyde bishop and Oda and William Wood, items 37 and 38.

The 5/7/79 CFUR's Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene b; Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), page 42, paragraph 3; page 44, paragraph 2; and page 46, last paragraph continued on page 47 of CASE's 3/15/82 Answers to NRC Staff's Fourth Set.

The 5/7/79 Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Contentions by CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), page 55, item 8, quoted in CASE's 3/15/82 Answers to NRC Staff's Fourth Set, C5-19.

See last three paragraphs of page 6 of this pleading.

5.k. We believe that the wording " working conditions as they may affect QA/QC" came basically from the same sources as referenced in our answer to 5.J. above.

See last three paragraphs of page 6 of this pleading.

6.

We have not identified the specific bases on which CASE intends to rely in support of its position on Contention 5.

They will probably include but not be limited to:

I&E Reports, information regarding ASME's allowing the certification and stamps to expire at CPSES, answers to CASE's interrogatories and requests to produce to Applicants and perhaps to NRC Staff, possibly the audit reports recently received from Applicants, and possibly the document just received by CASE on 3/15/82 (which we have not yet had the opportunity to review)

" Review of the Quality Assurance Program for the Design and Construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station," prepared by F. B. Lobbin, February 4,1982.

We are also in the process of trending the I&E Reports for CPSES' and for CPSES as compared to STNP. We will supplement our answers as soon as new information is available.

7.

Probably.

Unknown at this time. We will supplement later.

8.

Unknown at this time. See answer to 7. above.

9.

Althou'gh CASE has not identified the specifics in 6. preceding, we have identified many concerns in 5. preceding.

(This makes it a little difficult to know exactly how to answer your question.)

9.a. Possibly. Unknown at this time. We will supplement.

9.b. At this time, we anticipate that we will probably pursue all of the con-struction practices identified in Contention 5.

We will supplement.

10. Yes. See answer to 6. pmceding.

11. Unknown specifically at this time. However, see pmvious answers to in-terrogatories in this pleading.for some of them. We will supplement.

12. Very probably. Unknown at this time. We will supplement.

13. Not applicable.

s

14. Not at this time. We will supplemen't if and when appropriate.

15. We are still analyzing this. We will supplement our answers.

16. Not applicable at this time.

We will supplerr.ent.

17. Possibly. Unknown at this time. We will supplement.

18. See answer to 17 above.

19.

Probably. See answer to 6. preceding.

Specifics unknown at this time.

We will supplement.

20. See answer to 19 above.

l Respectfully submitted, sue, [AL l

RJrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) l 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 214/941-1211, work 49 l

.s merau comesa.w.w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,3 ;,g ) -

93 BEFORE THF, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I

~ n' I

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I

Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERAT7NG COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN I

and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I

SEAY. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I

UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)

I CERTIFIC/. E C" 5.!RVICE_

By my signature below, I hereby cert'ify that true and correct copies of CASE's Answers to Applicants' Third Set Of Interrogatories to CASE and Recests to Produce have been sent to the names listed below this ib tn day of i-arc.

1982, by.

Express Mail whem indicated by.* and First class MaiT elsewnere.

• Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. Preister, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and, Licensing Board Panel

• Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C.

20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean G., Marshall Gilmore, Esq.

Division of Engineering, Architecture, 1060 W. Pipeline Road and 'I4chnology Hurst, Texas 76053 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074

.O

• Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Lice'nsing Atomic Safety and Licensing.9oard Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor, alssion U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission u.Wgt.,

D. C..

20555 Washin;to'., D. C.

2 555 i

l

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

U. S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20036 Washington, D. C.

20555

• Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Office of Executive Imgal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Washington, D. C.

20555 RM J

1. s. ) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY) w

-v

, -