ML20081C358
| ML20081C358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1984 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403140020 | |
| Download: ML20081C358 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
.g gn"_(
DOLKETED USNPC
'84"hhfY3 h'9b$8#
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION[ff{r][C{U ipbN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
In the Matter of
)
)
Docke t Nos. 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 REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CYGNA Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.730(c), Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(" Applicants") hereby submit their answer to CASE's " Motion Regarding CASE's Summary of Cross-Examination Areas Supplied to Cygna on February 22, 1984," dated February 29, 1984.
For the reasons set forth below, Applicants oppose C ASE's motion and urge the Board to deny the motion in its entirety.
I.
INTRODUCTION On Februa ry 2 2, 1984, during the hearing regarding the Cygna Report, the parties agreed that, given the detailed nature of the technical-issues sought to be pursued by CASE, the hearing would be.most efficiently conducted if CASE were to provide to Cygna a list of technical-matters it intended to pursue.
Accordingly, 8403140020 840312 4
PDR ADOCK G5000445 9
PDR,,
)b
)
- o 4
2_
' CASE provided such a list la ter that day.
'These Cygna questions are scheduled to be addressed during the hearing commencing March 19, 1984.
CASE now seeks 1to supplement the list of matters it intends to pursue with the Cygna witnesses.
CASE identifies two new areas.of questioning which it would pursue with Cygna, viz., (1) the relationship between an NCR (previously litigated in this proceeding) concerning minimum pipe wall requirements and an observation by Cygna regarding a pipe analyst's use of an incorrect wall thickness in a segment of a pipe stress problem, and (2) _a matter presently being addressed by the NRC Staff regarding the effect of " heavy fittings" on piping and support stress analyses.
For the reasons discussed below, Applicants submit that neither matter is relevant to or otherwise appropriate for pursuit in the context of the Cygna Report.
II.
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION A.
General Before addressing each of the matters raised by CASE, Applicants note that we support the Board's efforts to encourage the parties and Cygna to discuss informally the matters to be pursued by CASE and to conduct further communications prior to the next hearing session regarding Cygna's position on those matters.
We.believe such efforts, if pursued in good faith by all parties, can_resul in clarification of the issues and possible elimination of the need to litigate certain matters.
We
4 4 4 also believe it is appropriate that the Board allow CASE to supplement the matters it intends to raise if good cause exists for not having raised the matter previously and the question is relevant to the Cygna Report.
In this instance, however, the matters CASE seeks to pursue are both irrelevant to and, in fact, not otherwise appropriate for pursuit in the context of the Cygna Report.
Further, CASE has shown no good cause for not raising at least one of these issues earlier.
Accordingly, we urge the Board to deny CASE's motion.
We also ask that the Board inform the parties orally of its decision (prior to issuing a written Order) to expedite-consideration, if necessary, of these matters.
B.
Piping Minimum Wall Thickness C ASE argues in its motion that a situation involving noncompliance with minimum pipe wall criteria, which had been identified on an NCR, litigated-in the proceeding and disposed of by the Boardl is related to observation PI-01-01 in the Cygna Report.
That observation involved a piping stress analyst's use of an incorrect pipe wall thickness in one segment of a pipe stress problem.. CASE contends that this observation suggests
. that the NCR regarding minimum pipe wall thickness "was not adequately addressed and dispositioned" (Motion at 2), and moves the Board to allow it to supplement the list of issues it intends to raise with Cygna with this matter (Motion at 4).
1 Proposed Initial Decision (concerning aspects of
-construction quality control, emergency planning and Board
-questions), July 29, 1983 at 46-47.
,. The minimum pipe wall matter referred to by CASS is wholly irrelevant to Cygna's observation PI-01-01.
The minimum wall
. thickness matter involved piping which satisfied ASME Code wall thickness specifications when manufactured and received on site but,-because of-various construction-related activities (e.g.,
. preparation for welding, back-grinding, are strikes during welding), may no longer have complied with minimum wall thickness requirements.
This' piping was subjected to extensive examination 4
by a highly-qualified NDE (nondestructive examination) organiza-tion-and reevaluated and repaired, if necessary, on an individual wall' basis'(Tr. 2097-2098).
In contrast, the observation by Cygna simply involved a piping analyst's use of an incorrect wall
. thickness value for-input into one segment of a pipe stress
. problem.
Cygna indicated in its review of the observation that the probable cause of-the error was simply an oversight.
In addition, Cygna concluded, based on a review of all remaining segments of the subject stress problem and a review of all segments of.another pipe stress problem (38 total piping segments), that the error was isolated.
(Cygna Report, Observa tion Record Review PI-01-01, sh. 1.).2 In sum, the two occurrences are wholly unrelated.
The minimum wall NCR discussed by CASE was a construction-related hardware deficiency, routinely identified, documented and n
2 Cygna.also determined, by independent calculation, that even had this error gone undetected it would have had no design impact (Cygna Report, Observation Record. Review PI-01-01, sh. 1).
. dispositioned pursuant to controls established by the quality
. assurance program.
Cygna's Observa tion PI-Ol-01, however, concerned an isolated oversight by a piping analyst in performing a pipe stress analysis.
There simply is no causal connection or other relationship between the two events.
In addition, CASE has provided no explanation for not having raised this issue earlier.
CASE received the Cygna Report more than two months prior to the hearing and litigated the issue of the minimum pipe wall NCR more than eighteen months ago.
- Thus, CASE had ample opportunity to raise this question when first asked to do so.
The Board should find that CASE has not demonstrated good cause for failing to identify this issue when it initially listed the topics it intended to pursue.
For the foregoing reasons the Board should deny CASE's motion to pursue the piping minimum wall question.
We urge the Board to rule on this matter expeditiously to assist in clarifying the issues to be addressed at the next hearing.
C.
Overthickness-in Pipe Fittings CASE also moves the Board to permit it to supplement the list of questions it intends to pursue with Cygna with a matter, now being pursued by the NRC Staff, concerning the effect of overthickness in pipe fittings on piping and pipe support design.3 CASE does not specify the purpose of such inquiry, 3
Another matter contained in Mr. Walsh's af fidavit is an assertion that Applicants use "' thin wall pipe in many (fo'otnote continued) i
. suggesting only that the matter is related to Observation PI Ol, discussed above (Walsh Af fidavit at 1).
Apparently, CASE
_ would have.Cygna " address" this matter along with the other design' questions already presented to Cygna (Motion at 4; Walsh Affidavit at 2-3).
For the reasons discussed below, we believe inquiry into this. area with Cygna is inappropriate and CASE's motion in this regard.should be denied.
-1.
Relevance to Observation PI-Ol-Ol The question of the ef fect of overthickness in pipe fittings is_ unrelated to'the Cygna Observation cited by CASE.
As already noted, tha* observation concerned an isolated instance in which a
-pipe' stress analyst employed an incorrect value of pipe thickness
-for'one segment of a pipe stress problem'.
In contrast, the overthickness of pipe fittings question is a condition, apparently resulting from certain manufacturing techniques used to assure that minimum wall thickness requirements are met, that is not likely to.be known to piping analysts who employ nominal
- wall 1 thicknesses in their analyses (see Attachment to January 27,
- 1984 letter from Knighton -(NRC) to Woolever (Duquesne Light),
( footnote continued from previous _ page) instances'" (Affidav,it.at 2).
This assertion lacks sufficient specification to formulate a response.
- However, even assuming the assertion is correct, no.information is presented to suggest the matter would have any impact on safety (e.g. that Applicants do not properly consider pipe wall thicknesses) or is relevant to the Cygna Report.
Accordingly, the Board should find that topic to be irrelevant to the~Cygna Report and not a proper' topic for pursuit in that context.
. attached to Walsh affidavit, at 4).
Thus, there is no relationship between the pipe fittings question and Observation pI-01-01.
Accordingly, the Board should find that the fittings question is irrelevant to Cygna Observation PI-01-01.
2.
General Relevance to Cygna review The issue of overthickness of the fittings is, as a general matter, inappropriate for pursuit in connection with Cygna's review.
In the first instance, the fittings matter is one of which Cygna could not have been expected to be aware.4 The question -also is a relatively new issue, arising from manufacturing practices which apparently satisfied applicable Codes and standards.
Further, although the matter is under staff investigation, no generic notice or bulletin has been issued by the Staf f to inform applicants, licensees and other potentially interested persons of the Staff's ongoing review.
In addition, the overthickness condition is observable on installed piping only by testing (e.g.,
ultrasonic examination) and, thus, would not have been within the scope of activities Cygna was requested or expected to perform.
In short, there is no reason to expect Cygna to have reviewed or even to have been aware of what, in essence, is a manufacturing question.
Finally, the overthickneus condition is one that would not likely be known to the piping analysts and, thus, would not be within the scope of effects ygna 4
Applicants have no knowledge of Cygna having reviewed this specific question.
Our response is, theretore, premised on the assumption they have not.
, could have examined in their piping design review.
Accordingly, we submit that inquiry into this matter would not be appropriate or meaningful to the examination of the Cygna Report.
If CASE is suggesting that even if Cygna had not previously examined the fittings question it should do so now (with the matters it is already examining for the next hearing), we urge the Board to find that the question of overthickness in pipe fittings is inappropriate for review by Cygna.
As already
. described above, that issue is beyond the scope of issues Cygna examined or could be expected to review.
In short, it is irrelevant to the Cygna Report itself.
Thus, such an effort simply is'not appropriate for review by Cygna or consideration by the Board in the context of the Cygna Report..
-In sum, the issue of overthickness of fittings is neither related to the portion of the Cygna Report cited by CASE nor is it an appropriate issue for pursuit in the context of the Cygna Report.
Accordingly, we urge the Board to deny CASE's motion to pursue this matter with Cygna.
Any further pursuit of this topic would, for the reasons discussed above, simply be nonproductive and unnecessarily time-consuming.
J
_9_
III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants urge the Board to deny CASE's motion in its entirety.
Respect ully submitted,
/.-
Nichol S i Scynolds n
hk 0J William A.
Horin Counsel for Applicants BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL'& REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9917 March 12, 1984
C0CKETED
'MNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LF FIN OF Stutt g-BbkkdhC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, _e t _a l.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motion Regarding Cross-Examination of Cygna" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by overnight delivery ( *),
or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of March, 1984, or by hand delivery (**) on the 13th day of March, 1984.
- Peter B.-Bloch, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. William L. Clements
- Dr.
Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881' West Outer Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 34830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Technology
- Stuart A.
Treby, Esq.
Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regula tory Mr. John Collins Commission Regional Administrator, Washington, D.C.
20555
-Region IV U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Sr.fety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C.
20555
.l
' Renea Hicks, Esq.
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney General President, CASE Environmental Protection 1426 South Polk Street Division Dallas, Texas 75224 P.O.
Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Lanny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th Street Suite 220 Austin, Texas' 78701 A\\
i i/-
ft. ~
William A.
Horin cc:
. H ome r C. Schmidt Robert Wooldridge, Esq.
\\-
eme is -