ML20136A549
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l na nec / 'o, UNITED STAT $s l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- I wasmwavow.o. c.zosss
,g a %[Q s' p.... October 17, 1984 h, ~i ~ ..,....., 2. - e r.. ,q r:- ... MEMORANDUM FOR:. Office Directors -{ ' Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT DIRECTOR i I have appointed Vincent Noonan as the Comanche Peak Project Director effective innediately. He replaces Thomas Ippolito, who resigned on Octcber 4,1984 Mr. Ippolito's resignation was for personal reasons and not because of any concerns regarding the Comanche Peak project.. Mr. Noonan will continue to coordinate and direct the' overall licensing review effort that had been begun following the same organization as before. (See my memorandum dated March 12, 1984, copy attached). The technical review team will remain intact. Mr. Noonan will report - to Darrell Eisenhut with regard to the overall adequacy of the Comanche Peak project. J., Mr. Robert Martin, who has assumed the psition of Regional Administrator -~ for Region IV, will assure the continued review and coordination of construction and operation issues for the Comanche Peak project. 9 'Y William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Attachment:
Memo, Dircks for Collins, Denton, ) & DeYoung, dated 3/12/84 i I I M l , j l l 8601020188 851113 l. PDR FOIA GARDE 8 5-59 PDR j .. ~
l '
- Pt
, ). / y J, umTED STATES i-
- -[.. * (P j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
j Q L,.4l l wAsmucion. o. c.2osss l
- y..o<j MAR 121984 i
i 1 i l - -- MEMORANDUM FOR: John T. CoTliiisf-Rhio,n,gl' Administrator . Region IV Harold R. Denton, Director .4 '.M Off. ice of Nuclear-Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement FROM: William J Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
COMPLETION OF OUTSTANDING REGULATORY ACTIONS ON COMANCHE PEAK AND WATERFORD i Construckion of the Comanche Peak and Waterford facilities is nearing completion. There remain a. number of issues that need to be resolved before the staff can make its licensing decisions. The issues remaining for these e plants are quite complex and span more than one Office. Iri order to assure. the ove~rall coordination / integration of these issues and to. assure issues are. resolved on a schedule to satisfy hearing and licensing decision needs, i I am directing NRR to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to prompt licensing decisions. Darrell Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, hRR is being assigned the lead responsibility for this activity. He will coordinate the efforts of NRR, IE, and Region IV, and will coordinate this activity with 01 and OELD. Prior to any of the affected Offices undertaking tnefor activities (e.g., inspections) or making decisions on these plants, that activity should be concurred in by NRR. We are presently in the process of assigning a dedicated senior manager to assist Mr. Eisenhut in the management of these activities.. The first phase of this program will be the identification of issues needed to be resolved for each plant prior to hearing and licensing decisions. i 1 Once the issues have been identified a Program Plan for resolution of each l item should be developed and implemented. The Program Plan should address the scope of the work needed, the identification of the responsible line organization,' arid tha schedule for completion. In principle, this effort will therefore be similar to the effort undertaken regarding the allegation review on Diablo Canyon except that this effort should encompass all licensing, inspection, hearing, and allegation issues. 159A ~ 3,9 rv. g
l o -p-i l-e Each affected Office will assign a full time senior manager to work with ~NRR j - to define, schedule and complete the issues. I ixpect these managers to be - identified by each of you within a few days. All affected offices should provide dedicated resources and..give' their full support to this effort, to . assure that al.1 ex.isting issues are exped.itiously handled and all new issues are promptly.provided.to,NRR.so'Ts'3 otJo delay the licensing decisions. In ... addition copies cif all information, doctsnents, depositions, etc.,should be promptly provided to NRR to ensure a coordinated approach. I anticipate that the approach utilized here will be necessary for a number of upcoming OL projects, and am directing NRR to take the lead for carrying out this activity. 1 Willi J. Dircks i Executive Director for Operations l cc: G. Cunningham, ELD S. Hayes. OI E I e p i j t k p i .t. l I-i i .__...-,.._m
10/19/84 s UhlTED STATES Of AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f In the Matter of ) 1 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 . TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC h 50-446 COMPANY, et al. 1 -~ Docket Nos. 50-445/2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 50-446/2 Station, Units 1 and 2) NRC STAFF REPORT TO THE LICENSING BOARD ON ~ STATUS AND SCHEDULE FOR ADDRESSING HEARING ISSUES The Board requested the NRC Staff (" Staff") to submit a status 1 report and schedule for hearing issues "pending within the Staff [that are] going to control the proceeding." Tuesday, October 2, 1984, Tr. 19,252. The Board specifically requested a report on the Staff's responses to CASE's discovery request on the EGAG, Idaho, Inc. report on intimidation ("EG&G Report"), the Applicants' filing on Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") emergency diesel generators, the Applicants' 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c) motion regarding a ' fuel loading and precriticality testing license.(" Fuel Load Motion"), including a response to the Board's October 1, 1984 " Memorandum (Concerns About Start-up Quality Assurance)," and the sunnary disposition motions on protective coatings and pipe ~ i 4I a jo** ll o-t i .. ~. -
__ support design concerns. 1 Tr. 19,261-62. While the Staff's status report is set forth later in this filing, the Staff believes that a more signi-ficant consideration for completion of this proceeding is the completion of the Technical Review Team ("TRT") review effort and the development of the Staff position based on this effort. Affidavit of Vincent S. Noonan ("Noonan Affidavit"), Paragraph 2. The TRT was established to undertake a comprehensive review of many particularized issues relating to the adequacy of the design and construction of CPSES. These issues encompass matters identified in the hearing as well as matters identified in alle-gations which were not raised in the CPSES licensing hearings. The TRT review of these allegations (and their logical implications) will provide the Staff with a comprehensive appreciation and assessment of safety matters at CPSES. Id. In some instances the TRT's review and findings may bear directly on currently unresolved matters raised in the hearing, such as QA procedures in document control. In other areas the TRT effort in the course of addressing a broader issue may bear upon relatively narrow issues raised in the hearing. For example, the maximum surface roughness issue raised in the hearing may itself be a relatively narrow issue but -1/ The Board also requested that a report on the status of the NRC Office of Investigation's ("0I") response to th'e Board's Septem-ber 17, 1984 Order (requesting the release of OI Investigation Reports on CPSES which were~ listed in Board Notification 84-149 (August 28,1984)). Tr. 12,255. Staff Counsel stated that the Board's request for a report would be transmitted to 01, but tha.t Staff Counsel did not represent 01, since 01 reports to'the Commission, and not to the Executive Dfrector for Operations. Tr. 19,255-56. Staff Counsel has informed OI of the Board's request. O w w~e-w- -~en
.. c. it is encompassed in the TRT consideration of the brc: der, more generic concern about the adequacy of protective coatings at CPSES. In still other' areas, the TRT findings may bear on issues having some relevance to the overall programatic QA issue in contention. The TRT is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the Applicants' management of their QA and QC -programs.- Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 2. Because of the many individual issues being addressed by the TRT, and because of the relevance of these issues to the broader issue of the overall adequacy of the Applicants' QA/QC program, the Staff believes that litigation of these individual issues before the Staff has completed its review and developed its overall position can only result in an incomplete understanding of the situation at CPSES and a confusing hearing record. M. As set forth in Mr. Noonan's affidavit, the Staff believes that it is important to assure a comprehensive and coherent recorc on the overall quality assurance issue and the many sub issues, and in order to do so, the Board should await the completion of the TRT review before adcitior.a1 hearing sessions-are held. El For these reasons the Staff submits that the most productive method of resolving the overall hearing issues is to permit the Staff to conclude its TRT effort, develop' its overall position on the basis of its review, and then present that overall position to the Board at an appropriate time. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 2. Indeed, to go ahead before the Staff has completed its review and developed a position on the hearing 2/ We believe that many of the pending Walsh/Doyle summary disposition motions can and should be completed while the Staff is completing. the TRT work. b W e
issues would be counterproductive to the Board's effort to resolve the issues in this proceeding in an effective manner. The Staff's status report with respect to hearing issues pending with the Staff is set forth below: A. Discovery on EG&G Report The Staff provided a partial response to CASE's Discovery Motion on October 16, 1984, and expects to provide additional documents on Wednesday, October 24, 1984. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 3. Further, the Staff has advised the other parties that the authors of the EG&G Report will be available in Bethesda, Maryland for a " Briefing Session" on November 8-9, 1984. B. TDI Diesel Generators The Staff efforts on TDI diesel generators to date have been directed primarily at the technical questions involving the adequacy of TDI diesel generators. Pacific Northwest Laboratories ("PNL"), the Staff's consultant retained to review the Applicants' Program for TDI diesel generators, has completed its report on the Applicants' Program. The Staff has completed its review of the PNL Report, and has issued a preliminary Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report ("SSER") on this subject. Copies of the preli-minary SSER and the PNL Report were transmitted to the board and parties on October 1, 1984 Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 4. The Staff is currently evaluating the adequacy of the Applicants' Vendor QA program. The Staff has also asked Applicants a set of ques-tions regarding QA/QC with regard to TDI diesel generators and is 4 VW l
E 5-currently beginning an inquiry into the adequacy of Applicants' Vendor-QA program as applied to TDI diesel generators. The Staff expects to complete its _ inquiry on Applicants' Vendor QA program and its imple-mentation with regard to TDI diesel generators by the end of November 1984. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 4. C. Fuel Load Motion ~ Staff currently projects to respond to the Board's October 1,1984 " Memorandum (Concerns About Startup Quality Assurance)" by the middle of Decemoer 1984. The Staff intends to respond to other aspects of "Appli-cents' Supplement to Motion for Authorization Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(c)" (September 13,1984) by November 2, 1984. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 5. D. Summary Disposition of Piping and Pipe Support Design /QA Issues The Staff is currently reviewing the Applicants' September 24, 1984 partial response to a set of Staff questions raised during the technical meetings held on August 8, 9, and 23, 1984. The Staff is awaiting the Applicants' remaining responses to the Staff's questions. The Staff expects to be able to complete one summary disposition motion (AWS/ASME Codes Provisions on Weld Design) by early November 1984. The Staff expects Eto file its responses on damping factors for OBE/SSE load-ing conditions, section property values, effects of. gaps on seismic response, safety. factors, use of generic stiffnesses, and friction forces due to small thermal movements by the end of November 1984. The Staff expects to file its responses to Applicants' summary disposition motions e G pp
cn U-bolts, Richmond inserts, stability of certain pipe support designs, the upper later restraint, wall-to-wall and floor to ceilin~g supports, force Distributions in axial restraints, and local displacements and stresses by the middle of December 1984. This schedule may be affected by apy further filings by CASE and/or Applicants which the Board requests I that the. Staff respond to in its response to Applicants' sumary disposi-- tion motions. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 6. r The remaining sumary disposition motion on the overall pipe and pipe support design QA and design control process, cannot be completed until the Staff has finished its evaluation of the previously mentioned sumary disposition motions, and also reviewed the findings of the TRT in.the design QA/QC area. Accordingly, the Staff projects that its response on this cubject will be filed by mid' January 1985. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 6. E. Sumary Disposition of Protective Coatings Issues i Applicants have filed motions for sumary disposition on the maxi-j mum surface roughness issue (June 25,1984) and on Westinghouse compo-nent coatings (September 4,1984). The TRT is currently completing its review of the protective coatings area, and the. Staff expects to respond to Applicants' sumary. disposition motions on protective coatings by mid January 1985. Noonan Affidavit, Paragraph 7. Respectfully submitted. l. p[y\\- ( i .s ~ Ge ry M izuno Counsel for NRC Staff i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of October, 1984 E ge e e )
e ,,s a t ;, sf /C Ot'~ Y h Y / \\ UNITED STATES [$.[} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION %g %. #,E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 +- -- -l l October 23, 1984 Feter B. Sloch, Esq., Chairman Herbert Grossman Acriristrative Judge Alternate Chairman Atocic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1.'eshington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ac-inistrative Judge EE1 W. Cuter Drive C6L Ridge, TN 34830 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Electric, et al. '(Comanche Peak-Steam Electric Station, UnitiTand 2) Docket Nos. 50-445/2 and 50-446/2 Lear /cministrative Judges: Enclosed please find a copy of the "NRC Staff's Motion for Postponement of Hearing (" Motion"), requesting the postponement of the hearing session scheduled for October 29 throuch November 2, 1984. The NRC Staff (" Staff") regrets that its Motion could not be filed earlier, but the Motion is based upon Staff positions which were finalized on October 19, 1984 and described in the "NRC Staff Report to the Board on Status and Schedule for Addressing Hearirg Issues" (October 19,1984) (" Staff Status Report"). The Staff Status Report was hand-delivered to the Board and parties on October 19, 1984. Staff counsel informed the Scard and parties in a conference call today, October 23, 1984, that the Staff expected to file this Motion-today. The Staff hopes the Board an.d the carties will be able to consider.the Staff's Motion during the Octcber 24, 1954 conference call. Sir.cerely, c
- l}
l.~ ~ f / Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff-Er.cicsure: As statec h ---h$-- c,fencl.: Dr. Kerneth McCollom 1 Joseph Gallo, Esq. I Remainder of Service List [ Q yjg 3A
1 October 23, 1984 ~~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445/2 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446/2 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) NRC STAFF MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING At t'he close of the October 1-2, 1984 hearing session, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") tentatively scheduled a hearing session for the week of October 22-26, 1984. Tr.19,260. The rnajor sub-jects of the hearing session, as modified by the Board's "Memorrandum ~ (Testimony of 0. B. Cannon Witnesses)" (October 4,1984), were (1) the testimony of Messrs. J. J. Norris, R. B. Roth, and J. J. Lipinisky regarding an O. B. Cannon Company report authored by Mr. Lipinsky on pro-tective coatings at CPSES; and (2) the testimony of Applicants' witnesis Mr. Thomas Brandt regarding " travelers" for the fuel pool and refueling cranal stain-less steel liners. In a telephene conference call on October.11,1984, the Board rescheduled the hearing session to Octobe' 29 througih November 2, 1954. Tr. 19,279-90. The Staff finalized its position regarding-the schedule ffor addressing the remaining' issues in this proceeding on October 19, 1984, aind the' Staff's
- ositien'is set forth in the "NRC Staff Report to the Licensirng Board on Status and Schedule for Addressing Hearing Issues" (October I!9,1984)
~ (" Staff Status Pepert") and in the accompanying affidavit of 'Mr. Vincent 5. l c5o3 go l ..-,c ,n n-r s
Tscenan ("ficonan Affid'avit"). The essence of the Staff's position set forth in its October 19, 1984 filing was "...the Staff believes that it is ~ important to assure a comprehensive and coherent record on the overall c:.ality assurance issue and the many sub issues [one of these sub issues is " intimidation], and in order to do so, the Board should await the completion of the TRT review before additional hearing sessions are held.U" Staff Status Report at 3 (footnote deleted). The Staff further stated "that the most procuttive method of resolving the overall hearing issues i is to permit the Staff to conclude its TRT effort, develop its overall pcsition on the basis of its review, and then present that overall posi-tion to the Board at an appropriate time." J d,. Consistent with the stated position of the Staff, it is important to await the development of a Staff position before holding any further evidentiary hearings on either technical or " intimidation" issues, including the issues scheduled for-Oc cber 29 through tiovember 2, 1984. The ongoing work of the TRT addresses many of the intimidation alle-gations which have been raised during the course of the ' intimidation hearings from both the standpoint of the technical issues involved, as well as from the standpoint of an overall assessment of the management's co=itment to quality control and quality assurance at CPSES. While this is different' than " intimidation" as defined in the Staff's " Proposed Standard for Litigating Allegations of Intimidation" (June 12, 1964), these programmatic issues are closely akin to the allegations of manage-ment discouragement or disregard of quality currently b'eing considered by the Board in the intimidation hearing sessions. Moreover, as part of its . crk, the TRT is considering the facts underlying many of the allegations F ,M .r.,
-3 For' examphe, the TRT is conducting an inquiry into the cf intimidatien. Applicants' document control program and QC procedures for the fuel pool, refueling canal, and reactor cavity stainless steel liners, a matter specifically involving the " travelers'." With respect to 0. B. Cannon, the TRT is assessing the adequacy of the Applicants' protective coatings QC inspection program. While it is true that the Staff is not specifi-cally investigating the question of why Mr. J. J. Lipinsky changed his mind, the results of the TRT review of the Applicants'- management and their commitment to their QA/QC program may have relevance to reasons underlying Mr. Lipinsky's change of position. The Staff will not reach any conclusions on these matters until the completion of the TRT review. It would not be an efficient use of Staff rescurces or the resources of the Board or the other parties' if hearings were held on matters such as 0. B. Cannon and the stainless steel liners, whicn may then need to be reconsidered upon completion of the TRT effort. Hearing sessions where the Staff is unable to present the results of its inspections and its position on contested matters tends to result in the disjointed presentation of evidence without an overall context. The Staff sube,its that this proceeding has progressed to such an extent that it is essential that individual issues and allegations be placed in the overall context. The most productive method for resolving the overall hearing issues is to await the completion of the Staff's Technical Review Team ~ ("TRT") review of the CPSES plant and the development of the Staff position ~ on the safety matters at CPSFS, before undertaking
- additional hearings.
hconan Affidavit, Paragraph 2. The Staff respectfully requests the Board f 4
4 to postpone the hea' ring currently scheduled for October 29-November 2 1954, until the Staff's TRT ccepletes its review of CPSES and the Staff develops a position of the overall issues in this proceeding. Respectfully submitted. Geary S'.lMizuno,) I Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of October, 1964 i 3 f I 4 peep y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD In th.e Matter of ) ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445/2 COMPANY, et _al. ) 50-446/2 ) (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTI'N FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING" J in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*), or by express mail or overnight celivery (**), or by hand delivery (***), this 23rd day of October,1984: Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman *** Mrs. Juanita Ellis ** Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street. '. 5. Nu;1 ear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX. 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq. Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman *** Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 12548, Capital Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, TX 78711 Washington, DC~ 20555 Nicholcs S. Reynolds, Esq.*** Dr. Walter H. Jordan ** William A. Horin, Esq. Administrative Judge Bishop, Liberman, Cook, BSI W. Outer Drive Purcell & Reynolds-Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1200 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036' Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom** Administrative Juoge ' Mr. James E. Cummins Dean, Division of Engineering, Resident inspector / Comanche Peak Architecture and Technology Steam Electric Station Oklahoma State University . c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Come.ission . Stillwater, OK 74078 P.O. Box 38 Glen Rose, TX 76043 6 s emme n ~ n a w ~ wm-
, Octert D. Martin ~ Billie Pirner Garde Willima L. Brown Citizens Clinic Dire ctor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Government Accountab.ility Project 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 1901 Que Street, N.W'. Arlington, TX 76011 Washington, DC 2000:9 Mr. Michael D. Spence, President Robert A. Wooldridge-Texas Utilities Electric Company Worsham, Forsythe, S.ampels & Wooldridge S'syiay Tower 2001 Bryan Tower, Su-ite 2500 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Dallas, TX 75201 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq. *** Lanny Alan Sinkin Atomic Safety and Li censing Board 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 U.S. Nucle ~ar legulat.ory Commission Austin, TX 78701 Washington, DC 2055 5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Li censing Appeal Panel
- Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulat.ory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 2055i5 Docketing'and Service
- Anthony Z. Roisman, EEsq.***
Office of the Secretary Trial Lawyers for Pu:blic Justice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N.W. : Suite 611 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 2003i6 Joseph Gallo, Esq. *** Isham, Lincoln & Beale Swite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20C36 k Ge4Vy 5ks%)zuno Counsel for NRC Staff l ? e -e -n -}}