ML20079S028
| ML20079S028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1984 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079S032 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402030160 | |
| Download: ML20079S028 (6) | |
Text
-
s.
00CMETED USNRC February 1, 98 g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<r7-y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN'G BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/28/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.730(c), Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit tneir answer to CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum and
.i Order (Quality Assurance for Design), December 28, 1983.
For the reasons set forth below, Applicants oppose CASE's motion and urge t
that it be denied.
r l
l I.
BACKGROUND l
On December 28, 1983, the Board issued a Memorandum and l
Order (Quality Assurance for Design addressing pipe support design allegations).
There the Board afforded Applicar.ts the opportunity to " file a plan designed to satisfy the Board con-l The Board also cerning the issues discussed in this decision."
8402030160 840201 gDRADOCK 05000445 PDR g
noted that CASE and the Staff would have an opportunity to respond to that plan.
(Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), at 75-76.)
The Board urged that Applicants consider including in its plan in independent design review, to be con-ducted in accordance with certain characteristics.
With respect to the suggested independence and qualification characteristics, the Board specifically stated thet Cygna Energy Services, which has already performed a design review for Applicants, appeared to meet the Board's criterion.
(Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), at 72-73.)
CASE now moves the Board to reconsider aspects of its Memorandum and Order concerning the plan the Board requested of Applicant s, including certain of the suggested characteristics for the independent design review.
CASE argues that Cygna should not be considered for performing this review because CASE believes an individual working with Cygna on the Comanche Peak independent design review was formerly employed by Applicants and
- Further, because Cygna " relied on" portions of the SIT Report.
CASE argues that portions of the characteristics enumerated by documentation and presentation, and the Board, viz., scope, As discussed sample be revised to accommodate CASE's views.
below, Applicants urge the Board to find that CASE's arguments p
for nodifica-regarding Cygna are unfounded and that its requests tion of the suggested characteri stics are not appropriate for consideration by the Board.
I
. II.
_AP PLIC ANTS ' ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION A.
Cygna Energy Services CASE asks the Board to exclude Cygna from consideration for performing the independent review requested by the Board because "it is CASE's understanding that the individual with Cygna Energy Services who is acting as liaison between Cygna and Applicants' was formerly employed by Applicants" (Motion at 1-2).
CASE also contends that Cygna " relied upon portions c-f the SIT Report and upon conversations with Applicants to arrive at some of its con-clusions" and that Cygna did not discuss' the contents of the SIT Report with CASE.
CASE argues, therefore, that Cygna should not be considered for the independent review.
Applicants' counsel contacted CASE on January 30, 1984, to ascertain the identity of the individual who was the subject of CASE's objections.
CASE identified this person as a Mr. David Ferg.
As stated in the attached affidavit, Mr. Ferg, who is presently employed by Cygna, was previously employed on the Comanche Peak project by Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
As an employee of Cygna, Mr. Ferg attended a few of the early organizational meetings regarding the Comanche Peak review at which procedures and other preliminary matters were discussed.
His role was only to interface with the Comanche Peak site.
When f
Mr. Ferg's name was included on the list Cygna drew up of those to be involved in the design review program (although he was only l
to act as a liason), to avoid even the appearance of a lack of independence, Applicants and Cygna agreed that Mr. Ferg should not become further involved with the program.
Accordingly, j
1 t
. Mr. Ferg was reassigned by Cygna so that he had no contact with I
the Comanche Peak review (Affidavit of David Wade, Attachment).
In'aum, Mr. Ferg's. involvement in the Cygna design review of Comanche Peak was minimal, and only at the initial stage of the program.
Such a limited connection presents no valid basis for questioning Cygna's independence in performing the design. review.
CASE's comments regarding Cygna's " reliance" on the SIT Report, its conversations with Applicants, and its not having contacted CASE regarding the. SIT Report are similarly unfounded.
First, Applicants have been unable to identify, and CASE does not specify, where Cygna relied on the SIT Report, as opposed to merely referencing the Report.
Further, even if Cygna had done so, CASE has not indicated why reliance on the information would l
have been improper.
Absent such a demonstration, CASE's claim that Cygna should have discussed such matters with CASE is also unfounded.
Finally, with respect to Cygna having discussed questions with. Applicants, procedures regarding communications l
between Applicants and Cygna were employed (with approval of the NRC), which provided only for documentation of oral communications and written answers to written questions (see attached Affidavit l
of David Wade).
In short, communications between Applicants and Cygna were open, and subject to scrutiny by the NRC, assuring the independence that CASE questions.
Thus, CASE provides no valid reason for the Board to question Cygna's independence.
Accordingly, the Board should deny this aspect of CASE's motion.
l I
,, ~ -
..., -,,,, -. -. - - - - -. -,, -. - ~, -.,, -., -... - - - - ~ - -. - -.. -.
. B.
Program Characteristics CASE also argues that certain of the characteristics suggested by the Board for an independent design review should be revised.
CASE requests the Board modify the characteristics concerning scope, documentation and presentation, and sample (Motion at 2-3).
Applicants urge the Board to decline to consider CASE's comments.
The characteristics of the design review specified by the Board in its Memorandum and Order ar'e suggestions, as is the conduct of an independent design review in the first instance.
Because the Board's concerns are founded on a perceived lack of evidence regarding Applicants' proof, at bottom it is Applicants' decision as to what information it needs to present.
Thus, it is not appropriate for CASE to attempt to dictate the conditions under which Applicants may develop or present their evidence.
III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should find each of CASE's claims to be unfounded or inappropiate for consideration r
.m..
6-by the Board.
Accordingly, the Board should deny CASE's motion in its entirety.
Respec fu y submitted,
)
f Nichol s Reynolds aO.sc William A. Horin Counsel for Applicants Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817 February 1, 1984 i
w
.--,-,...., _.,..- _-,..,.._.-