ML20137J289
| ML20137J289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1985 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-374 OL, NUDOCS 8508300210 | |
| Download: ML20137J289 (9) | |
Text
3 74 aJsLaTED CORRESPONDENf9
.tk.
August 27, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dog a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'85 AUG 29 All :57 In the Matter of
)
)
CFFICE OF SECPGl ?
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTPIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-4452-UN[$hC 'b COMPANY, e_t_ al.
)
50-446 l
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
4 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR BOARD ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANTS TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, AND CASE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION I.
INTRODUCTION CASE has filed its " Motion for Immediate Board Order for Applicants toPreserveEvidence"(August 14,1985)("CAS'E'sMotion"). CASE's Motion asks the Board to issue an order directing Applicants to discontinue removal of pipe supports, as contemplated under Appendix C, Item IX.D.b) of the CPRT Program Plan (Revision 2, June 28, 1985). Subsequently, CASE submitted its " Offer of Proof in Support of CASE's 8/14/85 Motion for Immediate Board Order for Applicants to Preserve Evidence" (August 19,1985) (" CASE's Offer of Proof").
CASE's Offer of Proof asks that its previous request for a Board order be extended to include a prohibition on modification or removal of " cable tray supports, conduit supports, and any other equipment or components which might logically be expected to be included in Applicants' latest CPRT or other reinspection efforts." CASE's Offer of Proof, pp.1,12. The NRC Staff (" Staff")
opposes both CASE's Motion and CASE's Offer of Proof, h
Y y
- Dsa,
RY s
1 II. BACKGROUND
" Applicants' Current Management Views and Management Plan for Reso-lution of All Issues" (June 28, 1985) (" Applicants' Management Plan")
proposed that litigation of technical issues currently in contention should be refocused in light of intervening events, including the CPRT Program Plan. With regard to pipe support design and design QA issues,
' Applicants suggested that litigation of the adequacy of piping and support designs should focus on the CPRT Design Adequacy Program.
Applicants' Management Plan, p. 60.
Item IX of the CPRT Program Plan sets forth the CPRT's proposed actions for addressing piping, pipe support design, and design QA issues.
In the course of describing the proposed CPRT actions addressing these issues, the CPRT Program Plan states:
As an option, some of the supports in question may be identified before stress reanalysis and an attempt made to delete their from the computer model if acceptable by engineering judgement by a team of experienced stress engineers. Upon successful completion of reanalysis, wch supports may be physically removed or modified to provide an expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the technical concerns even though the original design may be acceptable.
CPRT Program Plan, Appendix C, Item IX.D.b). Currently, there is no admitted issue-in-contention regarding the adequacy of design for cable tray and cable tray supports, or other components. However, Applicants' CPRT Program Plan includes elements designed to assess the adequacy of CPSES structures, systems and components. See, e a, CPRT Program Plan, Appendix A; Appendix B. Item VIII (Civil / Structural)
Item X (Mechanical Systems and Components)
Item XI (Electrical /I&C Systems and Components).
i
y
, +
III. DISCUSSION CASE's Motion and its Offer of Proof are without merit and should be denied, since they rest on two faulty premises:
(1) that removal or modification of pipe supports, cable tray supports, or other components could adversely affect the ability of the Board to assess the design issues with respect to that component, and (2) that removal or modifica-tion would somehow " skew the remaining samples towards acceptance on false premises." CASE's Motion, p. 2.
In the Staff's view, modification or removal of pipe supports, cable tray supports, or other components will not affect any party's capability to conduct discovery and present its position on design issues, either under the Applicants' Management Plan, or under the current theory of litigation in this case.
With regard to pipe support issues, if A'pplicants' Management Plan is adopted by the Board, it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the pipe support designs were deficient. Applicants' Management Plan would acknowledge the indeterminate nature of the designs, and proceed to either modify, remove, or replace the supports. The focus of litigation would be on whether implementation of the CPRT Program Plan will provide reasonable assurance that the CPSES plant has been properly designed and constructed. Thus, evidence intended to show the inadequacy of the pipe support design is irrelevant if Applicants' Plan is adopted.
This is equally true for issues regarding the adequacy of design for other CPSES components, such as cable tray supports.
Even if the Applicants' Management Plan is not adopted, there is no reason to prohibit Applicants from modifying or removing pipe supports or other components. All modifications or removal of pipe supports and
, e other components should be documented in the CPRT files. See CPRT Program'PTan (Revision 2) III.J., pp. 9-11 of 22. Accordingly, even if a component such as a pipe support is modified or removed, there should be a paper record memorializing the status and configuration of the component prior to removal or modification (and, in the case of modifica-tion, documentation on the modification itself).
If there is any need to know what components were removed or modified (and in what manner),
theCPRTProgramPlanshouldcontaindocumentationonthesesubjects.AI The paper record of any modifications or removals should be sufficient for any party in preparation of its case. There is no need for the physical component, vis-a-vis resolution of issues involving the adequacy of the design of the component.
CASE contends that the replacement of pipe supports would " skew remaining samples towards acceptance". CASE's Motion, p. 2.
The Staff disagrees with CASE on this point.
CASE seems to be arguing that pipe supports which are modified or removed by the CPRT would not be considered to be deficiencies for purposes of sampling (see, CPRT Program Plan, Appendix D, CPRT Sampling Approach, Applications and Guidelines) and consideration of generic and programmatic implications (see CPRT Program Plan, pp. 2, 6-7), thereby limiting the scope of review by the CPRT and giving a false impression regarding the incidence of design
-1/
If Applicants contend that such information will not be retained by the CPRT, then the Staff's assessment of the merit of CASE's Motion likely would be different, and the Staff would urge the Board to require Applicants to adopt provisions assuring the retention of such information. This is true even if the Board adopts the Applicants' Management Plan.
deficiencies identified by the CPRT. Assuming that this is true, 2/ the
~
Staff subniits that this concern should be the subject of technical
-~
discussion between the parties as part of providing feedback to Appli-cants on the CPRT Program Plan, and if unresolved between the parties, be litigated at hearing or through summary disposition. The Staff sees no reason why it is necessary for Applicants to refrain from modifying or removing pipe supports prior to resolution of this concern.
If CASE eventually prevails on this concern, this would merely require Appli-cants to redo their generic and programmatic implications assessment, and follow-up on the results of that evaluation. That process would be unaffected by whether or not the actual supports were still in place.
This is also true for other CPSES components -- if the CPRT Program Plan is ultimately shown by CASE to be inadequate in the area of sampling of, for example, electrical system design adequacy, this would simply require Applicants to repeat their generic and programmatic assessment of the electrical design area, and take appropriate corrective action. The existence of documentation of any modified or removed electrical equipment would assure that the CPRT is able to conduct its evaluation of the modi-fied or removed electrical equipment.
In short, the Staff does not see l
why Applicants' modification or removal of CPSES components will affect
~2/
The Staff's initial review of the programmatic aspects of those portions of the CPRT Program Plan submitted to date has been transmitted to the Applicants, and provided to the Board and CASE.
See Board Notification No.85-975 (August 16,1985). As set forth in the Board Notification, the Staff will be considering CASE's concerns on the CPRT Program Plan.
(Id.) This will include CASE's concern about treatment of pipe suppoFt' modifications or removals.
O.
CASE's ability to litigate the adequacy of Applicants' CPRT Program Plan elements for sampling, and generic and programmatic evaluations of compo-
~
nent design.
CASE's argument that removal or modification of pipe supports would preclude testing of the support and vitiate any Staff walkdown inspec-tions (CASE's Motion, pp. 2-3) is also meritless. Neither " testing" (presumably, inspection) of pipe supports (or any other CPSES components) nor a Staff walkdown inspection is likely to provide relevant and useful information on the adequacy of their design.
In the Staff's view, the evaluation of the adequacy of the pipe support design can be based on the pipe support design drawings, associated piping system design documents, and relevant construction procedures. The installed pipe support is not needed for such an evaluation, and therefore there is no need for any Board order directing Applicants to preserve pipe support configurations.
Similarly, the evaluation of the adequacy of any other CPSES component's design may be made upon that component's design drawings, specifications, the applicable system's design documents and specifications, and the relevant construction procedures. The installed component is not neces-sary for an evaluation of design adequacy and therefore a Board Order directing the preservation of that component is not necessary.
In summary, there is no reason to prevent Applicants from proceeding to modify or replace pipe supports, cable tray supports, or other components at CPSES, as long as an adequate record of that component's configuration, condition and status prior to modification or removal (and, if applicable, a record of the modification itself) is retained.
Since it is the Staff's understanding that Applicants' CPRT Program Plan
provides for the Applicants retaining such information, a Board order directingIApplicantstorefrainfromcomponentmodificationsorremovals
~
is not necessary.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny CASE's s
Motion, if Applicants commit to retaining records of all component modifications or removals.
Respectfully submitted, 1
~ '
G(ar izuno Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of August, 1985 l
n anLATED CORRESPONDERff$
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D M ETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION usNRC,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'85 NG 29 All 57 In the Matter of
)
GFFICE 0' SECatih, 00CKETmG & SERVlfa TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-445 BRANCH COMPANY, et _al.
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR BOARD ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANTS TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, AND CASE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail, system, this 27th day of August, 1985:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr.'Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division Dean, Division of Engineering P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Architecture and Technology Austin, TX 78711 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK, 74078 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
William A. Horin, Esq.
Eli:cbeth B. Johnson Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Administrative Judge Purcell & Reynolds Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1200 17th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Washington, DC 2003S Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Billie Pirner Garde Dr. Walter H. Jordan Citizens Clinic Director Administrative Judge Government Accountability Project 881 W. Outer Drive 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20009 m
Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman
- Mr. W. G. Counsil Administrative Judge Executive Vice President Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Texas Utilities Generating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Washington, DC 20555 Dallas, TX 75201 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.*
William L. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Lanny Alan Sinkin Worsham, Forsythe, Samples 3022 Porter Street, N.W., #304
& Wooldridge Washington, DC 20008 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 James T. McGaughy Southern Engineering Co. of Georgia Mr. James E. Cumins 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Atlanta, GA 30367-8301 Steam Electric Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 38 Panel
- Glen Rose, TX 76043 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 William H. Burchette, Esq.
Mark D. Nozette, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licer",ing Appeal Heron, Burchette, Ruckert Board Panel *
& Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Robert D. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1250 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-4798
]-
Geafy S U lizuno
'f-Counsel for NRC Staff