ML20107L979

Responds to ASLB 841029 Memorandum Requesting Addl Info Re in-process Weld Repair Hold Point.Aslb 841011 Request Unclear.We Baker Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20107L979
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/09/1984
From:	Philips M BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20107L964	List: ML20107L962 ML20107L969 ML20107L979 ML20107L983
References
OL, NUDOCS 8411130725
Download: ML20107L979 (6)

Text

e i

TED COliRE;3P.0i40U%

o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ %50 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

q t'l 13 A9:33 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c

In the Matter of ) o-

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 06-COMPANY, et al.

- ~ - -

)

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

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING IN-PROCESS WELD REPAIR HOLD POINT I. INTRODUCTION 4

By Memorandum of October 11, 1984 7 the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board (" Board") Chairman documented a telephone

- conference call in which he requested what Applicants believed to be.information regarding the_need for hold points on repair of weave welds found to be defective by QC inspection. On October 25, 1984, Applicants responded. Subsequently, by Memorandum of October 29, 1984, the Board stated that Applicants refused to respond to the Board's October 11 request and that Applicants' rasponse was deficient for two reasons as noted below:

We find this filing non-responsive for two reasons. First,.the Board is concerned with hold points on all repairs, not just weave welds. Second, the Board is concerned with obtaining an explanation for why hold points are required on authorized welds [1] but 1 The. term " authorized welds" was clarified by a phone

- conference of November 1, 1984 with Judge'Bloch to mean (footnote continued) 8411130725 841109 PDR ADOCK 05000445

.G, PDR ,

. . . . . .... .- .. . - ,.= -_-..... - - .- ., . , . . . . . . - - . . . . .

appear not to be required at all for in-process welds. What is there about repairs of in-process welds which makes it appropriate for the welders to make their own inspection of cleanliness, without a hold point, when such an inspection, solely by the welder, is not considered sufficient for repair of a_ final weld? This just does not' seem'to make sense and we need an explanation. [ Board Memorandum of October 29 at 1-2.]

Applicants response to this clarified request is attached in the form of the Affidavit of W.E. Baker. Contrary to the Board's statement however, Applicants have not heretofore refused to respond to the October 11 request for information. A fair reading of,the Board's October 11 Memorandum does not reflect a

,; clear request for the information which the Board states

- Applicants were unresponsive in not providing and the criticism of Applicants is unwarranted and unfair. Further, the thrust of 1

the Board's inquiry relates to either a defaulted issue which had

, previously been closed (weave welding -- see Applicants' October 25 Response at 3-5) or to a matter which had never been

.previously identified as an issue in controversy (repair of all welds -- see pp. 2-4, infra).

II. APPLICANTS' " UNRESPONSIVENESS" WAS BASED ON A LACK OF CLARITY IN THE REQUEST The first reason that the Board provides for its position that Applicants' initial reply was unresponsive is the Board's apparent view that its October 11 Memorandum clearly directed (footnote continued from previous page) welds identified as defective during inspections and repaired pursuant to the resultant repair documentation.

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

.: 3

. o a

f Applicants to provide information on repair of all welds, not

~

solely. weave welds. Applicants submit that this is not the case.

The stated basis for the October 11 request for information was a s . CASE proposed. finding which quoted testimony from Mr. Stiner related solely to repair of weave welds.- (Board Memorandum of

. October 11 at 1. See also Applicants' October 25 Response at 1-

, 2.) The paragraph preceeding and the sentence leading into Judge Bloch's' October 11 request was tied directly to the weave welding i issue and did not even remotely i.aply a concern with all welds.

Indeed, there has never been an identified issue in the case related to the repair of all welds.2 Further, during the

~ hearings when CASE a'ttempted to expand issues to include the.

repair of other welding, the Board-sustained objections in this regard.3 In short,~ Applicants submit that a fair reading of the 7

2 In this regard, the Board states that because of Applicants' s _ unresponsiveness, Applicants are exposed "to-a possible ~

adverse finding unless this lack of responsiveness is promptly remedied by Applicants or is adequately addressed j; by Staff." (October 29 Memorandum at 1.) In that~ repair of-all welds _has never been identified as an issue in_this case-or raised sua sponte by the Board, Applicants submit that a finding" on this issue would be, in any event, unnecessary and unwarranted.

3 See e.g., Tr. 12205-06 where the following discussion-occurred:

MR. REYNOLDS: May I ask for a clarification from the Board?

We seem to be talking in general about ,

the grinding of welds at Comanche Peak, as opposed to the grinding. of welds that may have been in excess of four core wire diameters.-

It seems to me that this line of cross-examination is not relevant to the issue before the Board.

JUDGE BLOCH: Well, are you going to go much further with this?

(footnote continued) e e e  ?-*w- ee-- r=we ,_m --re, w,..-c_-- m. ,_y,-,- --w.-,. , , ,,,,,---*--e-m-e--. _--,,,.-..,m-,,em e.-e,.., ,-+,..,r-.,%~ - . ~ ~ - . - , . ,

0-October 11 Memorandum leates little doubt that it did not clearly relate to all-welds as the Board states in its October 29 Memorandum.

The second reason that the Board provides for its position that Applicants were unresponsive is the Board's apparent view that its October 11 Memorandum clearly directed Applicants to provide information on "in-process" corrections of welds (i.e.,

corrections performed by a welder in the normal course of making

^

the. weld) instead of repairs performed in response ' a deficiency discovered and reported by QC. Applicants submit that this is not the case. .Neither, the Board's October 11 request nor the proposed finding on which it was based mentions "in ,

process" repairs. Further, the precise wording of the October 11 request for information clearly leaves the impression that the

( footnote continued ~ from previous page)

MS. ELLIS: I don't think much further, but I think there is some concern, because I'm not sure that it's clear or can be clear which welds were ground down because they were over four core wire diameter and which might have been ground down for some other reason.

JUDGE BLOCH: Let's keep in mind that that's the relevance, and if you have other questions, let's ask them. But otherwise, let's progress.

BY MS.-ELLIS:

l _

Q Mr. Taylor, do you have personal L'-

knowledge or have any reason to believe that any QC welding inspector might have been concerned about the number of welds that were ground down at Comanche Peak?

I MR. REYNOLDS: Same objection. It goes beyond the scope of direct. It's not relevant to the issue before the Board. r JUDGE BLOCH: That is irrelevant.

request-relates to repairs resulting from OC inspections. For example, the October 11 request continuously # refers to " repair" of " defects" or." defective" welds. Technically, a weld cannot be

" defective" until completed and a weld cannot be said to contain a " defect" until judged de ficient by QC inspection. Affidavit of W.E.' Baker at 4, attached (" Baker Affidavit"). In short, the words of'the October 11 request do not clearly relate to "in-process" corrections.

Applicants note that irrespective of the precise wording of the' request, the possibility that the request dealt with in-process welding was not even considered by Applicants. To consider such a possibility suggests that, contrary to welding codes, welding expertise and indeed the entire welding industry, whenever a welder performs any of the numerous, routine in-process corrections the welder is trained to do (e.g., cleans slag off a pass or grinds out porosity, slag or an undercut), the welder should be required to stop and obtain a OC inspection to assure it was acceptable to continue. Mr. Baker's affidavit shows that this clearly is not feasible and has never been required. (Baker Affidavit at 4.)

From the foregoing, Applicants submit that the October 11 Memorandum did not clearly request information relating to either l in-process welds or repair of all welds. In sum, Applicants were not unresponsive to the Board's request made in the October 11 Memorandum and the Board's criticism is not proper. We must I

again point out the inherent unfairness in a procedure which allows an active participant (in this case the Board) to request i

l i-

~ . . - . . , _ . -

. discovery and then, when in good faith a question arises as to the scope thereof, to rule upon the clarity, meaning and relevancy of its own request without ever having heard the side of the responding party. Given that the Board may have such discretion,.we believe that at the very least when the Board assumes such a posture and finds itself in conflicting roles, it should exercise restraint in openly criticizing a party's lack of responsiveness under such circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

+

y Nicholas S.

7 ReynolSs Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.

William A. Horin

, Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)857-9817 Counsel for Applicants November 9, 1984 l

i l

l l

l

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