ML20099G255

Reply to Case 841105 Motion Concerning Info Re Cinching Down U-bolts.Denial of Case Motion Requested

ML20099G255
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/19/1984
From:	Philips M BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20099G259	List: ML20099G255 ML20099G274
References
CON-#484-243 OL, NUDOCS 8411270189
Download: ML20099G255 (11)

Text

fN CO W ETED us. m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'64 EN 20 Ao 33 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _-_ .. .

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, et

~- -~

al. )

) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION CONCERNING INFORMATION REGARDING CINCHING DOWN U-BOLTS I. INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Order of October 18, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") ordered that Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (" Applicants") provide the Board with the raw data supporting Table 2 of the Affidavit of Robert C.

Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr.

(" Affidavit of Iotti and Finneran") appended to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of CASE's Allegations Regarding Cinching Down of U-Bolts (June 29, 1984) (" Applicants' Motion"). On October 23, Applicants responded.1 On November 5, 1984, CASE filed a motion which alleged that Applicants' October 23 response to the Board, when 1

Subsequently, by Memorandum of October 24, 1984, the Board clarified its request and ordered Applicants to provide copies of the actual sheets upon which the raw data was recorded data.

as well as the procedure used for collecting the On November 9, Applicants provided such information in the form of an Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr. '?

8411270189 841119 DRADOCK03000gg

q7q

.e -p ;  %;.

1

.g. j-9

.s.

"- c, Q i y ~- ,.

e n ; 2 .- ~

s D' .

T

. viewed'inLconjunction.with other state. vents by Applicants, reflec'ted . (1) ' a deliberate attempt by . Applicants to mislead the if A .

18oard~and (2)=a material false statement. Based on these-

. allegations, . CASE inoved ' that the Board take seven j specific

!)

- actions related principally to discovery-type activities. -CASE's Motion at 9-10. As set

forth more fully bel'w, o Applicants submit'

-that the bases for CASE's Motion (i.'e.;fthat Applicants have made 3 . o a material false stat'ement: and < deliberately attempted ;to mislead ^h> ,

4 .,c,.

the Board) are totally without' merit. Accordingly,-- the'~ Board ,

should deny CASE's Motion.

, . st-

<8, II. APPLICANTS' REPLY ' , '

Applicants respond below to the bases for CASE's motion and y

to each of the seven. individual actions specifically requested by CASE. .

A. The Bases of CASE's Motion Are Without Merit As the bases for its motion, CASE alleges that Applicants-

n have " deliberately attempted to mislead tho' Licensing Board, and that this constitutes a material false statement"' (emphasis in the original). CASE Motion at 6. 'l , CASE's allegation relates ;to a sampling of the torques of cinched down U-bolts at CPSES taken by Applicants to provide an indication'of wdat torque values may be expected in the field in order to reasonabiy set some parameters for the U-bolt testing program discussed in Applicants' motion for summary disposition re'garding this issue. Affidavit of J.C.

Finneran, Jr. at 2 ("Finneran Affidavit of November.9,,1984")

( 3, attached to Applicants' November 9, 1984 Response to Board

c

'x -

=- - -,- .

f. -

3.-

' Request-foraRawfData1Regarding Cinching'Down_U-Bolts. With re. gard to this: sample, Applicants state that'the U-bolts measured-were~"a randomly,s' elected representative sample.of' cinched down U-bolt supports." Affidavit of'Iotti and Finneran.at 10.-- .In its motion'(at 2-3 and~6), CASE alleges that thisistatement'is deliberately misleading. and constitutes a material ~ false statement.-for the following reasons:

-(l) the U-bolts.at issue related to Unit'l'-

.and common portions of the plant, while

.the sample was taken from. Unit 2 0-bolts; (2) the sample included non-safety related-U-bolts and U-bolts on pipe sizes not put-in. issue by CASE,_-i.e.,fpipes three inches in diameter and below; and (3) the U-bolts sampled may have been. torqued using: construction practices different.

' than those ' used for torquing Unit 1 and-common U-bolts.

These concerns are addressed seriatim.

l '. Unit 2 U-Bolts CASE states that Applicants should have sampled torque in t

the Unit 1 and common U-bolts and not those in Unit 2. Without any specific support, CASE alleges that the torque in Unit 2 U-bolts are not representative of the torque in the Unit 1 and-

-common U-bolts. Accordingly, CASE concludes that in not informing the-Board and all parties that the Unit 2 U-bolts were being used for the sample, Applicants were deliberately attempting to mislead the Board and made a material false statement. CASE's Motion at 2-3 and 6.

" '^ ~ -

- n - " ~' ' ' '

s / m- , ' _ . . _

I'g l ' y $[;

c 5 f.' , < .

L'.

~ ,y -

t. ,>, r - ,

__.n ,

y?3

, , y - ,' - - ;4 :- '

se . ,

b;_C l '

The: Unit 2.U-bolts : sampled were identicaliin make',

<m nufacture and sizes to, and1were torquediusingJthe'same.

, fconstruction practices asLthe'Un'it411and_ common U-bolts.- - In-

~~

i-short, athe ".to'rquesf recorded Dins the ' Unik 2--U-bolts ' were -

representative'of thE/torquesLin the Unit'l and common ~U-bolts;

It should _ be noted . that, l in any_ ~e' vent', Unit l'. had . already.- been s

, painted _and any torque. values measured on~such U-bolts would have:

~~

1been-suspect",,if.-not-altogether meaningless. Affidavit of'J'C.. .

Finneran, Jr. ' at 1-2 :(attached) . - See also' Affidavit'of-..Iotti~and Finneran (at 12) and Finneran' Affidavit'of November?9, 1984 at ~

2-3. ' Accordingly, Applicantsf. sampled-the only representative population available - -the U-bolts in Unit 2.- Affidavit of J.C.

Finneran, Jr. at 2. '

In'this~ regard, Applicants did not attempt to hide the ' fact ~-

that Unit 1 and'. common U-bolts'had'been painted and.would~ provide suspect readings or that-.the sample was taken from Unit 2 U-bolts. Indeed,.CYGNA even made a written inquiry which was distributed toiall parties regarding the concern of painted-U- ,

bolts on Unit 1 and the impact on torque values. August 3, 1984 letiter from N.H. Williams to J.B. George,

Subject:

"U-Bolt' Cinching Testing / Analysis Program -- Phase 3 open Item"'at  !

?

Attachment A, Question 13. If. Applicants had been trying to hide this: fact, Applicants would not have expressly called out that the sample was taken from Unit 2 in their October 29, 1984 i

~ Response to'the Board's-Request for Information Regarding b

f

i. .;

, e s.,+:ew, .E, mem -,t ., -.,--y e i ,mwey ,-, w, i, + cma, ,wrr+,.-s, v w y,w - ,-+,.m-m -*+--*i,w-*ewte----, 3-.---4.,.a+,wr-.wr.r..---- -.- yM-+v e y

, s t

'j - >

-Cinchi'ng Down'U-Bolts. In this regard,-CASE has;not and indeed

'cannot pointito any-statement by. Applicants which reflects a

~ deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive.the. Board.

With regard to' CASE'~ s: allegation that . Applicants made a material 1 false statement, Applicants note that' CASE again'has not and cannot point to any statement of . Applicants .which is - false.

Rather, CASE provides the following bases for its assertions -

regarding a material false statement:-

There is-certainly nothing in Applicants' Moti9n for Summary Disposition or in the

~

Sworn Affidavit of Messrs. Iotti and Finneran-to' indicate that the range of torques "which exists in the-field" on their " randomly selected representative sample of cinched down U-bolt supports" were taken from supports in Unit 2. The wording in Applicants' Affidavit clearly implies otherwise. In fact, Applicants' Witnesses Messrs.-Iotti and Finneran even state specifically (page 11 of Affidavit):

"O. Is it possible that there might be considerably higher torques applied to U-bolts in the plant than those which

, you have described and were used in the tests?

"A. We consider" that this likelihood is very remote . . . [ CASE's Motion at 2;]

Contrary to CASE's assertion, " wording in Applicants Affidavit,"

-including the statement of Messrs. Iotti and Finneran quoted by CASE above, does not clearly imply that Applicants' sample was taken from Unit 1 U-bolts. Indeed, the remainder of Messrs.

Iotti and Finneran's statement, which CASE chose not to include,

, 2ls "

6-makes clear that the bases 'for , their position L that higher torque

~

values in the field 'were not expected was the characteristic of the affected. material 1to relax-to approximately~1/2_ yield.

In sum,fCASE's' allegations _as noted above provide no support f

fortits-position that Applicants ~either deliberately attempted to.

deceive the Board or made a matarial false-statement..

'2.

"Non-Safety Related'U-Bolts and U-Bolts-on Pipe Sizes Below Four Inches CASE alleges that since Applicants' sample consisted of

.non-safety related U-bolts and U-bolts on pipe' sizes below four inches (neither.of which is at. issue in this case), Applicants' sample was not representative.. Accordingly, CASE alleges that' Applicants' statement that_its sample was representative was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Board and constitutes a material false statement. CASE's Motion at 6.

~

First, Applicants Motion makes clear that the sample j

consisted of differing pipe sizes; indeed, the sample was broken down into pipe sizes.

Table 2 to Affidavit of Iotti and j Finneran. Such a breakdown was necessary to set parameters on the pipe sizes to be tested as set forth in Applicants' Motion.

Accordingly, CASE's allegation concerning pipe sizes is meaningless.

With regard to Applicants' use of non-safety related U-bolts, in that all cinched down U-bolts at CPSES (safety related and non-safety related) are 4 identical in make and manufacture and 4 were torqued using the same construction practice, the torque on 1

i-non-safety related U-bolts are representative of the torque on i

_ . - _ _ _ - - _ . . - .,. ~. _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . . , , _ , . , - - . , . , . ,

y

' g-)

• ~

_7-safety related U-bolts. Indeed, .a comparison-of the torque measured on non-safety and safety related U-bolts demonstrates thia point, .and-CASE has not, and cannot state otherwise.

~

Applicants: note that if anything, use of non-safety related U-bolts in the sample was conservative in that workers may be less careful with torquing of such U-bolts. Finneran Affidavit at 2-3.

s In sum, CASE's allegations noted above provide no support for its position that Applicants have deliberately attempted to-mislead the Board or made a material false statement.

3. Construction Practice Concerning Torquing of U-Bolts .

Without any support, CASE alleges that "it is likely (and this can be proved through discovery) that the procedure adopted by Applicants on 10/8/82 was utilized in the torquing of U-bolts in Unit 2, whereas it was not utilized, in most cases, in Unit 1 and common. If the 10/8/82 procedure was in fact utilized in the torquing of U-bolts in Unit 2 but not utilized in Unit 1 and common, it appears that Applicants deliberately sought to mislead the Board." CASE's Motion at 6.

As previously noted, the construction practice for torquing Unit 1, common and Unit 2 U-bolts was the same. In this regard, Applicants note that the procedure referenced by CASE was written at the suggestion of the NRC resident inspector at that time (Robert Taylor) to document the construction practice which had i

! been and was currently being used to torque U-bolts. Finneran l l

Affidavit at 2. In short, CASE's allegation is without merit.

i l

n- .

h

.From'the foregoing, Applicants-maintain that CASE's

~

- allegations that Applicants deliberately attempted to mislead the Board or made a material-false statement are. totally without merit, and CASE -has f failed _ to ~ provide a basis for . its motion.

-Accordingly, Applicants submit _that CASE's Motion _should'be denied.

B. CASE's Specific Requests

-While Applicants argue above that CASE's motion-should be denied, Applicants respond. below to each of.the seven specific requests of CASE. The information requested.in items 1 and 2 (related'to raw data on the sample conducted,by-Applicants)2 was previously provided in Applicants' November 9, 1984 response to the Board's request for such information. The requests'made in items 5 and 63 relate to CASE's allegation that Applicants made a false material statement. This allegation is addressed above.

2 Items 1 and 2 are quoted below:

1 Order Applicants to provide to the Board and parties the raw data requested in the Board's 10/18/84 Memorandum and Order (Information Concerning Torques in U-Bolts).

2. Order Applicants to provide a sponsoring

~

sworn affidavit with the raw data referenced in item 1. above. [ CASE's Motion at 9.]

3 Items 5 and 6 are quoted below:

5. Find that Applicants have made material false statement (s) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

6. Order Applicants to provide the Board with an explanation of their material false statement (s). [ CASE's Motion at 9.]

k

a- ,

The remaining three items are addressed below.

-1. Item 3: Allow CASE further discovery regarding the information requested by CASE during the 8/6/84' telephone conference call among Applicants / Staff / CASE and all other information relevant to this matter, as well as discovery regarding possible unstable supports in Unit 2 (see discussion at pages 3 through 8 preceding). [ CASE's Motion at 9.]

Except.for the question of how many U-bolts sampled were cinched down after October 8, 1982 (when the torquing construction practice noted by CASE was documented by procedure),

it appears that all infonnation requested by CASE in the August 6,

1984 conference call has been provided (1) during the conference call, (2) in Finneran's November 9 Affidavit, or (3) previously in this document.

With regard to when the sampled U-bolts were cinched down, while Applicants have not performed a detailed analysis regarding this issue, in that there was no difference in construction practice concerning torquing of U-bolts before or after this date (as noted above), the information requested is irrelevant and immaterial. Finneran Affidavit at 1-2.

With regard to CASE's request for discovery of Unit 2 supports, Applicants maintain that discovery on Unit 2 would be meaningless.

CASE has already taken the position that any

" instability problems identified in Unit 1 exist in Unit 2 to the same degree at was noted in Unit 1 . . . ." CASE's Answer to Applicants' Response to Board Request for Information Regarding Cinching Down U-Bolts in the form of Affidavit of CASE Witness Jack Doyle at 2-3 (filed on November 5, 1984, but dated October

i f

t 29,-1984). . Applicants have stated that torque in the Unit 2 U-bolts are representative of torque in the Unit 1 U-bolts. In short, if CASE wins its case regarding this issue on Unit 1 U-bolts, the findings would be equally applicable to Unit 2.

Accordingly, now seeking discovery on Unit 2 U-bolts would provide no meaningful information to assist in resolving this issue and would only serve to delay its resolution. This is particularly the case in that Applicants have committed to retorque all U-bolts on single struts or snubbers in the plant, including Unit 2.

2. Item 4: Order Applicants to provide the documents requested on discovery not only to CASE, but to the Licensing Board and other parties ae well (if not in the interest of Applicants' shouldering their rightful burden, then as a sanction for their having made a material false statement to the Licensing Board).

[ CASE's Motion at 9.]

As noted above in response to item 3, additional discovery is neither warranted nor justified. Accordingly, Applicants maintain that this item is moot. In any event, the only basis CASE provides for its request is that Applicants have made a material false statement. This basis is not only irrelevant to the request, but also without merit, as noted above.

3. Item 5: Order Applicants to provide the Board with'a sworn affidavit stating whether or not Applicants have utilized other random representative samples from Unit 2 rather than Unit 1, not only in their Motions for Summary Disposition and responses, but elsewhere in these proceedings or in their responses to the Technical Review Team (TRT) report (and if so, details regarding such instance)." [ CASE's Motion at 9-10.]

l l

k

CM.

~s.

~

~

a: As set forth in the attached Affidavit of J.C. Finneran at 3,1 Applicants are unaware of.any other instance Where a random field sample from Unit 2 was' conducted in lieu of and as representing a sample in. Unit 1. In this regard, however, in Affidavit of Messrs. Iotti~and Finneran Regarding Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints (at 10), attached to Applicants' Motion on this issue (July 9, 1984), Applicants' sample consisted of 29 supports employing lugs, 24 of which are in Unit 1 and common and five of Which are in Unit 2.

III. CONCLUSION From the foregoing, Applicanto maintain that CASE's Motion should be denied. (Applicants note that, in any event, the information provided herein and in Applicants' November 9 Response to the Board (as noted above) provides virtually all of the information requested by CASE in its motion.)

Respectfully submitted, A r ? pr Nicholas S. Reynolds William A. Horin Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.

BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)857-9817 Counsel for Applicants November 19, 1984