ML20096A722

Response Opposing Air & Water Pollution Patrol 840814 Pleading on Reopening Contention VI-1 Re Welding & Welding Insp Infractions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20096A722
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/29/1984
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408310223
Download: ML20096A722 (8)

Text

\\

I4Q

,4 I.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAXMETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONC Before the Atomic Safety and fb. e biM NdM

~

m

,,c In the Matter of

)

'D

~ '.h j '

OL Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Dock Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 k (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AWPP PLEADING RELATING TO REOPENING CONTENTION VI-1 On August 14,

1984, Air Water Pollution Patrol

("AWPP") served a pleading entitled "AWPP Provides Further Support for Reopening Contention VI-1 re Welding and Welding Inspection Infractions at Limerick."1!

The relief sought by AWPP is not at all clear.

In the body of the pleading, AWPP calls for "a

full scale re-inspection," presumably of all safety-related welds in the facility.

The title of the pleading would suggest that it is further support for a motion to reopen.

Applicant opposes the relief requested.

As discussed below, the matter is unrelated to welding or welding quality assurance and has been largely mooted by subsequent events.

1_/

The pleading was dated August 13, 1984.

8408310223 840029 PDR ADOCK 05000352 g

PDR T;so3

4-jj I

There -is.no' need to recite the chronology of events regarding' Contention VI-1.

Suffice it_to say that the Board found that' Applicant had overwhelmingly met its burden of proof that it had controlled. performance of welding and welding -inspection in accordance with quality control and quality assurance procedures and requirements and has taken proper and effective corrective and preventive actions when improper welding has been discovered.

See LBP-84-31, 20 NRC (August 29, 1984),

slip op. at 99-108.

The matter raised by AWPP relates to code interpretation and not any.

inadequacy in welding or welding quality assurance.

Some understanding of the underlying codes is necessary to place this matter into context.

The specific matter raised by AWPP relates to preservice or baseline testing of 12 particular welds contained in systems governed by the ASME Code.

These welds were found to be acceptable using l

the nondestructive examination

("NDE"),

e.g.,

radiography and hydro-testing, required by Section III of the ASME Code which governs construction.

Under Section XI of the ASME

Code, certain in-service inspections are required to be conducted periodically over the life of the facility.

In order to have a comparative basis on which to judge the 2/

10 C.F.R. 550.55a incorporated the ASME Code into the

'~

NRC. regulations.

i

c ;-

1 -

)~

in-service -inspection results, certain preservice NDE is required by Section XI.

~

During the preservice-testing, certain indications were noted by Applicant's - NDE contractor in these 12 welds.

Code, !

these Although under-the 1980; ASME Section -XI indications would have been acceptable, -inasmuch as the systems ~ involved had not received their "N"

stamp which represents final construction acceptance, the construction code,Section III, still governed.- That code does not allow acceptance of piping containing any rejectable indication even though that indication was found using NDE techniques not required by it.

In order to resolve the

matter, Applicant had non-destructive testing consultants interpret the indications on the 12 welds to determine their acceptability to Code requirements.

Only the indications on one of the welds were interpreted as rejectable.

That weld will be repaired.

Therefore, the need for an exemption as to the 12 welds no longer exists and is being withdrawn.

Thus, the basis of resolution of this matter has been established.

The scope of this matter is extremely limited, and no generalizations regarding welding at Limerick can be drawn 3/

The governing code is the 1980

Edition, including addenda through Winter 1981.

The 1980 Edition of Section XI governs the initial 10 year. interval for in-service inspection.

The 1974 Edition of Section XI, however, governs the-preservice inspection.

l. p

from it.

"AWPP has; pointed to no link between this matter and a specific welding deficiency.

No current disagreement exists between Applicant ' and the NRC Staff-as to _ the disposition of. the 12 specific welds.

The Board has - previously_ found that not every difference of opinion between Applicant and Staff would necessitate Board consideration of a new matter:

The contention' provides no basis for thinking that the Staff does not adequately understand-the nature of the violation or that the Staff and the Applicant will not see to it that --the causes of the violation are corrected.

At no pcint in a

proceeding, but especially not after the safety and environmental issues have

'been-litigated, is the mere citation of' a Staff inspection report finding of some deficiency sufficient basis for an-admissible contention. 4_/

The particular matter in question was not even the subject of a Notice of Violation.

The Board's reasoning applies with even greater force for that reason and because the matter has now been resolved and no technical disagreement exists.

It is not clear what matter AWPP would litigate if the record were reopened or what expertise AWPP would bring to 4/

" Memorandum and Order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions From F0E and AWPP, Denying AWPP's Second Request,for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contention, Denying AWPP's Motion to Add a PVC Contention and Commenting on an Invalid Inference in Del-Aware's May 17, 1984 Filing" at 6 (August 24, 1984).

~

i l

't 5-Y such litigation.

Mr. Romano's. experience as a glass blower certainly does not qualify him as an expert in metallurgy or ASME Code requirements.. AWPP has-not addressed the test for reopening the ' record. !

For a-situation which has apparently been known to AWPP since early June, considering the very short time to fuel loading, the subject request cannot be considered timely.

AWPP has failed to show that this matter is a significant safety question,. particularly when it had been identified by Applicant.and that a

satisfactory resolution has now been achieved.

Finally, AWPP has failed to show how the "new evidence" might materially affect the outcome of Contention VI-1.

Aside from AWPP's sheer speculation that a number of welds were involved, there is nothing to indicate that this is other than an isolated matter involving a single weld.

For the foregoing reasons, the requested relief should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant August 29, 1984 1

5/

Id.,

footnote at 3.

~r 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response to AWPP Pleading Relating to Reopening Contention VI-1,"

dated August 29, 1984 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 29th day of August, 1984:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. (2)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Office Dr. Peter A. Morris of the E::ecutive Atomic Safety and Legal Director Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

r 1-4 I Atomic Safety and Licensing Angus Love, Esq.

Board. Panel 107 East Main Street U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Norristown, PA 19401 p

Commission

' Washington, D.C.

20555 Robert J.=Sugarman, Esq.

Sugarman, Denworth &

Philadelphia Electric Company Hellegers ATTN:

Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

16th Floor, Center Plaza Vice President &

101 North Broad Street General Counsel Philadelphia, PA 19107 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Mr. Frank R. Romano Basement, Transportation 61 Forest Avenue and Safety Building Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr.' Robert L. Anthony Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Friends of the Earth of Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

the Delaware Valley City of Philadelphia

-106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Municipal Services Bldg.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 15th and JFK Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

Brose and Postwistilo Spence W.

Perry, Esq.

1101 Building Associate General Counsel lith & Northampton Streets Federal Emergency Easton, PA 18042 Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.,

Rm. 840 Miss Maureen Mulligan Limerick Washington, DC 20472 Ecology Action P.O. Box 761 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA Thomas Gerusky, Director 19464 Bureau of Radiation Protection Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.

Department of Environmental Assistant Counsel Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Governor's Energy Council Third and Locust Streets l

1625 N. Front' Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue l

King of Prussia, PA 19406

r

w-x

p, L

.[ 74.

1

~

. 3 --

James'Wiggins Senior. Resident Inspector U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 47 Sanatoga,.PA,'19464

~ Timothy R.S. Campbell Director c

. Department of Emergency Services

..,14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380' l

t s

l s

+

1 l

/MafL119A-Marb/ J. Wetterhain I

I j

'\\

s

- - -. - - _ _ _ - _ - _. - _ _ -... - - _ _. _. _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - _. _ _ - - - - _ - - - - _ _ -