ML20080M654
| ML20080M654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310040230 | |
| Download: ML20080M654 (14) | |
Text
w
.u y 1_x.
+
38..
- i..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N[(,g ED R'JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USN c BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAg @T h
- g in the Matter of
$r59F SEch APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Docket Nos.50 1'46 45:
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and'5034 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2
~(CPSES) g CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' 9/22/83 MOTIONS (1) TO CANCEL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS A,ND J2) FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION j
I Pursuant to the Board's verbal directive allowing answers to subject motions by Applicants to be filed by expedited mail to be received by the Board on 9/30/83, CASE hereby files this, its Answer to Applicants' 9/22/83 Motions (1) to Cancel Evidentiary Hearings and (2) for Expedited Consideration.
(The Board's directive in effect has already granted the second part of Appli-l cants' pleading, since CASE did not receive Applicants' pleading until 9/23/83; thus, Applicants' reconmendation "that answers be received by the Board no
(
}ater than... (one week following receipt of this motion)" has been adopted by the Board. We will therefore address the first portion of Applicants' pleading in our instant pleading.)
CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO CANCEL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 1
Applicants would have the Board believe that' the NRC's recent inspection l
of the Fuel Building found nothing of significance with which.fhe Board should j
conce,rn itself and argue that a reading of the report and Applicants' affidavits in answer to it prove Applicants' premise.
i However, a brief review of the inspection report (83-23) reveals the following:
f m
G310040230 830929 PDR ADOCK 05000445
/
O PDR j
- ,m f
s
.)
t;'
From Appendix A, Notice of Violation:
Violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, and FSAR Section 17.1.10:
"a.
Cable Tray Supports... material for Cable Tray Hangers 1848 and 1979 deviated from final design documents.
"b.
Conduit Hilti Bolts... spacing of one bolt... deviated from minimum spacing allowed to adjacent abandoned hilti bolt.
"c.
Large Bore ASME Pipe Supports... Five pipe supports deviated from final design documents as follows: one weld... was undersized; dimensions for (2 supports) deviate from vendor certified drawings; and materials for (2 supports). deviate f rom vendor certified drawing.
"A broken cotter pin.was found on (one support) which had been inspected
. for integrity.
"d.
Small Bore ASME Pipe Supports... Three pipe supports deviated from final design documents as follows: dimension for (one support) deviated from final review drawing; shimes (sic) for (one support) were misoriented during the documentation of as built conditions; and the material in (one support) deviates from the final i? view drawing.
"This is a Severity Level IV Violation..."
(Emphases added.)
Violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and FSAR Section 17.1.5:
... procedures for the installation and inspection of the 'NPSI' seismic sway strut jam nuts do not appear adequate to insure snugness as required
... and as evidenced by the finding of five loose jam nuts on (5) large bore ASME pipe supports...
"This is a Severity Level IV Violation..." (Emphases added.)
The section on " Details" in the I&E Report gives further insight into the extent and type of problems encountered.
From pages 5-7 of the Report, " Details":
"By direct observation, the NRC inspector visually inspected completed work to determine whether activities relative to large~ bore, small bore, and Class V pipe supports systems are being accomplished in accordance with NRC requirements, SAR conmitments, and licensee ' procedures. The NRC in-spector examined the support for general configuration, weld appearance and size, hardware, dimensional check, clearances, tolerances, and support i
spacing between small bore.
M m
\\
. p, -
"(1) Large Bore ASME Pipe Supporte.
"The NRC inspector visually inspected 50 large bore pipe supports in accordance with the completed as-built vendor certified drawing (VCD) and current CMC's. Six supports out of 50 contained discre-aancies; which are considered to relate to adequate QC inspection.
ive supports were identified to have loose jam nuts on the seismic sway strut:.
These discrepancies are considered to be generic in nature and relate to NPSI supports utilizing single jam nuts. Sup-ports that contained discrepancies are noted below...
"The above discrepancies are considered to be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion A, and the FSAR, Section 17.1.10.
" Loose Jam Nuts
" Procedure... requires that nuts be snug tight.
Loose jame (sic) nuts were found on the following (5 st.pports)...
"This discrepancy is considered to be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and the FSAR, Section 17.1.5.
"(2) Small Bore ASME Pipe Supports "The NRC inspector visually-inspected 35 small bore pipe supports j
in accordance to current as-built VCD's and CMC's. Three supports were observed to have discrepancies...
"The above discrepancies are considered to be in violation of 10 i
CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X and the FSAR, Section 17.1.10.
"(3) Class V Pipe Supports
(
"The NRC inspector also inspected eight Class V supports. Traveller 1
packages did not contain all current drawings, inspection reports, h
and CMC's.
The licensee informed the NRC inspector that not all final documents have been combined by document control. This is j
an open item...
"(4) Pipe Support Stability "NRC Region IV staff reviewed the pipe supports in paragraphs 2.C(1, (2), and (3) for stability.
No cases of instability were ide'ntifi
' "... The discrepancies noted by the NRC inspector mostly consisted of i
dimensional tolerances, loose jam nuts, material not specified by the bill of materials, and one undersized weld.
The discrepancies noted are of I
no major safety significance but do reflect on QA/QC effectiveness.
2 Procedures used by QC require inspection of items above."
(Emphases added.)
d
-C
e
~
e p.D-stD As can be read.ily seen from the preceding,12% of the large bore pipe supports visually inspected contained discrepancies, and 10% were identified as having loose jam nuts on _the seismic sway _ struts.
Further, these discrepancies were considered by the NRC inspector to be generic in nature and relate to NPSI supports (which are of special interest in these proceedings) utilizing single jam nuts. Over 8-1/2% of the small bore pipe supp3rts which were inspected had discrepancies. Problems with traveller packages lefi. the inspection of Class V j
pipe supports as an open item.
(It should be noted that the wording of the report c. hanged with regard to pipe support stability, an issue raised in the Walsh/Doyle allegations.
It a
is stated throughout the report that "the NRC inspector" did the inspections; but the statement regarding pipe support stability indicates that "NRC Region IV staff" did the reviewing in this regard.)
j As stated by the inspector, although the discrepancies noted are of no giajor safety significance in and of themselves, they do reflect on QA/QC ef fec tiveness.
Applicants argue (page 6) that the Board should go away and let the NRC i
Staff take care of everything. However, the credibility and/or competence t
1 of the NRC Region IV personnel who have testified in these proceedings is l
l
'(
strongly questioned by CASE (see especially pages XXVII - 30 through XXVII -
1 51 and documents incorporated by reference on page XXVII - 30 of CASE's 8/22/83
!lroposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations)).
(And it is of further concern that the Senior Resident It1spector - Construction at Comanche Peak, Robert G. Taylor, was employed by Gibbs & Hill, Inc., the l.
Architect / Engineer at Comanche Peak, from 1968-1974; see Professional Qualifi-
.)
2 cations of Robert G. Taylor, attached to NRC Staff Exhibit 13, Testimony of O*
~
y
- William A. Crossman, Robert C. Stewart and Robert G. laylor Concerning Con-
' struction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, filed 5/24/82. Had the testimony of Mr. Taylor not included such sti.tements as
"... our program in particular is completely non-statistically based.
It's almost what I 1ike to call intuitively based.
It inspects enough to provide enough informa tion to the inspectors to arrive at what amounts to a subjective judgment." and "I would be very comfortable building a house on top of that plant (Comanche Peak) and living in it for the entire future of my life and not be concerned whatever with my safety or my family's safety."I... his pas t employment might not in and of itself have been a concern.
However, coupled, with his testimony in these proceedings, we believe it must be included in any assessment the Board might make regarding the credibility and/or competence of Mr. Taylor and the NRC Region TV personnel who have testified in these h ea rings. )
For the reasons cited in the preceding, CAST.. believes that it is absolutely imperative that the Licensing B,oard in thes_e p_roceedings not abandon its right and duty to assure itselt that Comanche Peak has been built in such a manner that it can operate without endangering _ the health an_d_ safety of the public.
Applicants have stated that "The record on C'ontention 5 (QA/QC) must be considered closed with the exception of a few outstanding matters awaiting
, completion of certain NRC investigations and 0 pen items from two previous
, inspections.
Indeed, the Board is about to issue its Final Decision on the l Tr. 1715/21-24 and 1735/16-19, respectively.
See also discussion on pages 27-36
- of. CASE 's-12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982.
.)
g my.
s s y m
~
,4
[h 4
^)
',4 remainder of the issues considered under Contention 5, an -indication of a more fcomplete (and final) posture of the record than the record on pipe support design allegations, as to which the Board has considered the record to be closed..."
However, the Board's 9/23/83 Memorandum and Order. (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance issues and Board Issues) was in some ways not to the Applicants' liking and does not support Applicants' presumptive statements. The Board stated (pages 1 through 3):
[
"This decision is called a ' Memorandum and Order' because its effect is to affirm the declaration of a default on some issues and to make interim factual findings that do not dispose of any contentions. Hence, this is an interlocutory order that does not conclude the evidentiary record on any contention. /2/
2
" Staff persuaded us that CASE's failure to file findings on certain quality urselves 4
assurance issues should not preclude the Board from satisfying o, longer that our record is reasonably complete. To this extent, we no consider that our remaining questions on these quality assurance issues j
are in the nature of preliminary inquiries concerning potential sua sponte issues. Since the quality assurance contention still is pending, we need not decide whether our questions dre 'important' safety issues--as used in the sua sponte section of the procedural rules--but only whether we require answers in order to have a satisfactory understanding of the
?
quality assurance contention. /_3/
j
" Applicant's objections have, in some instances, led us to narrow the scope of our continuing concern. In other instances, applicant's objections have been incomplete and our review of the record in light of those objections
b has caused us to make new, more detailed findings.
j 1
I "The, objections of the parties also have permitted us to clarify the nature of our concern and the relationship between some of the 'open items' and the Board's overall responsibility to assess the adequacy of applicant's quality assurance program.
"Although the issuance of proposed decisions is not expressly provided for in the rules, and should be used sparingly, in this partitular instance 11 we believe the procedure has been useful."
"/_2/ Facts found in this decision will be relied on in our initial decision is 2
in this case. To this extent, the memorandum and order makes final rulings, but we do not believe it need be issued as an initial decision under 10 CFR 2.760.
5 j
"/_3/ Because of this change in the Board's analysis, statements in our proposed decision about whether or not we will declare a 'sua sponte' issue should l
be interpreted as statements about whether or not we requir.e a more com-l, plete record."
q
.A c
s
,.n
- +..
y.
n.
19 -,
3 t,.
t Clearly, the Board has nk le its decisions based on a thorough review of the record and the pleadings of all parties; equally clearly, the Board's decisions as stated in its 9/23/83 Memorandum and Order are well within NRC
' regulations and the Board's responsibilities and authority in these proceedings.
The issuance of its 9/23/83 Memorandum and Order have already answered Applicants' 9/22/83 Motion. CASE believes that the Board has acted correctly in this matter.
The inspection report contains details of other inspection areas, some of which the Board has also recently indicated a specific interest in (the punch-list). On pages 17-18, it states:
"13. Punchlist e
"The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for punchlist-ing incomplete items. The NRC inspector reviewed the following three punchlists: the construction punchlist, the completions punch-list, and the master punchlist.
"The construction punchlist consists of outstanding construction items
'i normally generated on a room or outside area basis. Work in these 1
areas is performed in accordance with normal construction procedures with QA/QC coverage as requried (sic) for safety-related work by the QA/QC program.
i
"... Based on the inspector's review of the punchlist system, the NRC inspector found that basic controls do exist; however, there are problem j
areas identified for which further actions appear necessary as follows:
4 There i~s no procedural control of the tonstruction punchlist.
4 There is no procedural control for punchlist input.
l There is no procedural control for removal of punch 4ist items.
13
{
s
~
There is no historical record of itens on th' punchlist.
e It is not clear when the construction punchlist and master system punchlist is t. be canbined.
~
y-
--A y~
- 9k 3-
,b There is no QA/QC review of the punchlist from the standpoint of the need for corrective action.
SAP-18 is incumbent on the s tartup and operations organizations, but not the-construction organization.
QI-QP-15.2-1, Revision 4, has been outdated with regard to record verification as record deficiencies are now input to the construction punchlist vice to the completion punchlist.
"Pending followup on the above items, this matter is considered unresolved..."
(Emphases added.)
On page 18, another unresolved item (which is not included in the list of uhresolved items listed on page 19 of the I&E Report) was identified:
"14. QA Audi ts "The NRC inspector found that a general inspection by audit personnel had occurred in the Fuel Building, but it was not documented as a formal audit.
The NRC inspector indicated that the subject of audit of the room / area turnover process was considered as an unresolved item pending subsequent planned inspections of the room / turnover pro-cess by NRC Region IV.
The licensee has indicated that planned audits will be conducted in the future..."
(Emphasis added.)
It should be pointed out that Applicants themselves made the Fuel Building a__ big, issue.
Throughout these hearings, they've said in effect that it's not fair to say that a pipe support was unstable, for example, because it was still going through an iterative process and wasn't really, really completed and signed off yet.
But the Fuel Building was to have been the first building completed and
~
signed off on -- the first one that was really, really finally through.
Obviously, the NRC's report of its inspection of the Fuel Building does i
not support Applicants' previous rosy predictions that it woul'd prove that everything was fine at Comanche Peak. To the contrary, the NRC inspection revealed that there are a number of problems, some of which are generic in nature dealing with NPSI supports. And contrary to what Applicants had stated,
}',
4,H'9pf93f;)y s
% 5 hiy:M
.r g
' fgl 3
2
+
9 u
o the inspection by the NRC proved that there were many items which Applicants' QA/QC program did not catch -- items which should have been caught by QC but
_ere not.
w
.Further, there is at least one individual at the NRC Region IV office T
who has ' publicly expressed his concern and stated that (contrary to Applicants' public statements and their statement on page 15 of their pleading) "'I would not characterize it as being a good effort'on their part. We were dissatis-fied witih the fact that there were a number of items that we found that they I
did not identify in their effort.'" (See Attachment A and pages 3 through 6 of CASE's 9/3/83 Motion Regarding 9/7/83 Conference Call.) James Gagliardo has publicly expressed his views on more than one occasion regarding this matter; he wss also a part of the 3-man NRC Caseload Forecast Panel which y
met in Arlington, Texas, on this past Tuesday, September 27, 1983. During j
x;?;
that public meeting, he asked the Applicants' representatives specifically J
u if they had taken care of the problems with their punchlist.
(Applicants' response was unintelligible to Mrs. Ellis, CASE's representative who attended the meeting but was some distance away from most of the participants.)
['
i l
As discussed in our 9/3/83 Motion Regarding 9/7/83 Conference Call, it appears to CASE that Mr. Gagliardo has direct personal knowledge of material facts either not known to or not discussed by other NRC Staff witnesses in l
n l
F l
these proceedings. CASE moves that the Board use its authority under 10 CFR 2.718 and 2.720(h)(2)(1) to require his testimony at the upcoming hearings
'e should the Staff decide not to call him as a witness (which we assume they
?
will not do).
^
c.
--- - + - -
l,
=
vx - %w 4.,q
.a
?
- 10 _
. );
m f
p-Thus, the importance of the Fuel Building inspection is great, since (as stated by the NRC in its 7/27/83 cover letter):
... this represents the first inspection of the turrover/ access control process... it, presents the first time that areas or rooms are essentially complete with exception of the preidentified incomplete items. We consider this inspection to be our initial effort with regard to construction com-pletion and that the results of this inspection should provide you with insight into areas where actions appear necessary to improve the turnover /
access control process. We have drawn no final conclusions from this inspection.
It is the plans (sic) of this office to conduct future inspections of selected completed areas or rooms."
Mr. Gagliardo has been quoted as saying that fines or enforcement actions
<ould be imposed if the Applicants do not improve their final quality control inspection en completed facilities.
(See Attachment A to CASE's 9/3/83 Motion Regarding 9/7/83 Conference Call.)
CASE will not discuss in any detail Applicants' self-serving consnents regarding the lack of positive infonnation on Comanche Peak being disseminated (bottom of page 6), except to mention that Applicants put out a weekly news release to the media in this area espousing their views.
Nor will be address fully their efforts to distort the public interest and public confidence issue; obviously', the best way for them to have gained public confidence and to serve the public interest would have been for them to have decided early on that
- they would build a safe nuclear power plant, and build it right the first time, CASE strongly objects to Applicants' suggestion that issues be litigated by affidavit rather than through the established process, whemin Intervenors are given the right to cross-examine on issues which have been raised which are pertinent to open contentions (_such as Contention 5). The Board's respon-sibility is to see that a full and true disclosure of the facts is made (as set forth in 10 CFR 2.743(a)).
CASE has been working on a motion for discovery wr
f
~
' >)<
2,. _ _ _,
regarding certain new and significant matters, including the inspection.of the Fuel Building by the NRC, which would in all likelihood have led to hearings at some point in time. One of our problems in developing our motion E
has been that most of the questions are really cross-examination questions rather than questions for discovery.
Thus, Applicants' latest attempt to read CASE's mind has, as in all cases in the past, failed.
Applicants appear to be making a veiled hint that there is somehow something improper in the Board's desire to obtain sufficient information to complete 4
the record in these proceedings and to inquire further into matters in which it has already indicated a strong interest, such as the computerized punch list and its use at Comanche Peak. Obviously, Applicants arguments in this regard are merely self-serving and an attempt to hide the facts from this Board.
In regard to the affidavits attached to Applicants' motion, it is obvious that Applicants still miss one of the primary reasons for the NRC's and CASE's concerns -- that' Applicants' QA/QC program did not catch many things during their final, absolutely complete inspection of the Fuel Building which should have been caught. The issues in controversy here need to be litigated in a hearing, and CASE supports the Board's propcsed hearing on these and other matters.
4 ilN CONCLUSION, CASE opposes Applicants' motion and moves that the Board:
(1) Go forward 'with the hearings as set for the week of October 17, 1983,
}
/r on the NRC's inspection of the Fuel Building; and (2) Require the presence and testimony of James Gagliardo of the NRC 1
.D 1
f e <(
)
.- y
~ f4 ' ef,7 i
e r :o, ~y 12 -
' ;I Region IV office at those hearings.
Respectfully submitted, 7'7
- y. ' huautn //2'<_e>
Juanita Ellis, President f', ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
C 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 G
O O
e 4
c
v[ n.
- o. ':n. +. x.
s U i.fl! * %
sR q
i s u ! 6. '*g 4
[
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- UNd NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[]
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e
In the Matter of I
I APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Q
GENERATING COMPANY, ET' AL. FOR Q
Docket Nos. 50-445 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR
{
and 50-446
. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM El.EC.'RIC l
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l
-l c.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J
By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of j
CASE's Answer to Applicants' 9/22/83 Motions (1) to Cancel Evidentiary Hearings d
and (2) for Expedited Consideration
- h. ave been sent to the names listed below this 29th day of September
, 19 8.3_,
by: 80 Wt)tXM91 where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
FEDERAL EXPRESS
- .8
.{
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
, y 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, D. C.
20555
. fr
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
[
Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
'j 881 W. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.
20555
~
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Waf'i ngton, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Office of the ' Secretary 5
Office of Executive Legal Director, U5lRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
,- g Maryland National Bank Building Washington, D. C.
20555 4
7735 Old Georgetown Road - Room 10105 L
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Lanny Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board s
Austin, Texas 78701 Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1;lashington, D. C.
-20555 s
s
,2
' U/ 0!
5 alIf.f.f' 4
a Certificate of Service Page 2
.g David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Envirormental Protection Division Supreme Court Building.
Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Adminisreator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dr. 3.<vid H. 801tz 2012 S. Folk i
Dallas, Texas 75224 i
//Lsu W AD (6r5.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk l
Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 l
8 O
O O
+
~ ' -
- ,