ML20136F552
| ML20136F552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1984 |
| From: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F556 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412050260 | |
| Download: ML20136F552 (2) | |
Text
6 ndoswe 1
/
'g UNITED STATES
[#
q., -
- q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e,
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 D
November 26, 1984
+
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Task Force
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK - ALLEGED MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS BY APPLICANTS In the Comanche Peak proceeding, Applicants' submitted information to the Board and parties in which there appears to be a significant omission of material information.
We request that you consider whether this consti-tutes a " material false statement" warranting' enforcement action.
If you agree, it appears that this may also warrant investigation by OI to ascertain the intent of the Applicants in this matter. A brief sumary of this matter is set forth below (the referenced documents are attached to this memorandum).
Applicants submitted a " Motion for Sumary Disposition Regarding of
. CASE's Allegations Regarding Cinching Down of U-Bolts" (June 29,1984)
(" Applicants' U-Bolt Sumary Disposition Motion"), together with the
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran Regarding Cinching Down of U-Bolts" (" Applicants' U-Bolt Affidavit"). Applicants' U-Bolt Affidavit argues that Applicants' technique of cinching down U-bolts does not overstress the U-bolts. Affiants supported this argument by referring to a " randomly selected representali.ve sample of. cin.ched..down.
s U-bolt supoorts" which had been checked with a torque-wrench to determine the range of torques that had been applied in the field.
Applicants' U-Bolt Summary Disposition Motion, as well as other summary disposition motions on pipe support design and design QA, were submitted to provide I
explanations and/or justification for design and construction practices j
for hnth_ Units 1 and ? of the Comanche Peak plant.
In a subsequent informal discovery telephone conference in response to questions posed by Mr. Mark Walsh, a technical support person associated with Intervenor CASE, Mr. Finneran affinned that the sample used in the study was "representatfve" of all the U-bolts involved and that there was a "high
(
probability" that there would be no overtorqued U-bolts at Comanche Peak.
l August 6, 1984 Meeting Transcript, pp. 11-16.
J Subsequently, the Licensing Board requested additional information, including the " raw data" on which the study was based. Memorandum and Order (Information Concerning Torques in U-Bolts) (October 16,1984).
When this information was provided it showed that only U-bolts in Unit 2 had been selected for the study. Applicants' Response to Board Regt,st i
for Information Regarding Cinched Down U-Bolts (October 23,1984).
See also Licensing Board Memorandum (Raw Data U-Bolts) Qted Ntober 24, 1984 and Applicants' Response to Board Request for Raw Data ' garding Cinching Down U-Bolts dated November 9, 1984.
b h2h
Having discussed the matter with the Staff reviewers, we conclude that Applicants' failure to disclose the fact that the " random study" cited by Applicants to be " representative" of all U-bolts at Comanche Peak could have misled the Staff into believing that the cited " random study".
included sufficient U-bolts in Unit I to permit a direct inference that U-bolts in Unit I were not overstressed.
That the Staff was not misled into relying on Applicants' representations can be attributed to the fact that the Staff's analysis and review of this particular summary disposition motion was not near completion when the underlying raw data requested by the Licensing Board was provided by Applicants. After assessing the Applicants' representations made prior to the disclosure, we conclude that the. failure to disclose that the " random study" was limited to Unit 2, even though the study was submitted for the purpose of justifying conditions in both Units 1 and 2, was a significant emission of material fact which could have misled the Staff in its review of Applicants' U-Bolt Suninary Disposition Motion and the accompanying affidavit.
Intervenor CASE asserts that this constitutes a material false statement and has requested the Board to so find.
CASE's Motion and CASE's Answer to Applicants' Response to Board Request for Information Regcrding Cinched Down U-Bolts (November 5, 1.984). The question of whether Applicants have made a " material false statement," or have otherwise offered inaccurate information in support of its Suninary Disposition Motion, is highly relevant to the creditility of Applicants' evidence on the Sumary Disposition Motion, as.well as Applicants' evidence in general.
Thus, we expect the Board to pursue this aspect.
We will inform the Licensing Board of the Staff's determination regarding whether the Applicants' failure to disclose the limited nature of its " random study" constitutes a " material false statement."
\\
I.suggest that we set up a meeting between cognizant members of your o*
staff, members of NRR working on this and ELD representatives. I propose that we meet at 10 AM December 4,1984.
Please have your representatives-call me to confirm and I will obtain a meeting ro cn[I o
IIctor Comanche eak T sk Force
Enclosures:
As stated cc with enclosure B. Hayes w/o enclosure D. Eisenhut S. Treby R. Martin, Reg, ion IV T. Novak J. Youngblood S. Burwell
_ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _