ML20195B616
| ML20195B616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1986 |
| From: | Gad R ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-280 OL, NUDOCS 8605290445 | |
| Download: ML20195B616 (22) | |
Text
-
N Wnnr.wunuc,,
j Filed:
May 20, 1986.
g9 LIJ ', fj'3?
i Q}"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
I, g 7,
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g7%fP!
p before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
50-445ff
)
Docket Nos.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
50-446 L
COMPANY et al.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
. ) '
(Application for an
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
~
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO
" RESPONSE TO' BOARD QUESTIONS" On March 21, 1986, the Applicants filed a motion for the establishment of a schedule for the conduct of
~
resumed proceedings in this matter.t That motion was advanced in view of the then-impending (and since J
~
1" Motion for Establishment of Schedulh" (3/21/86).
L 8605290445 860520 PDR ADOCK 05000445-G PDR L
']) s 63
7 accomplished 2) availability of the first of the outputs of the Comanche Peak Responce Team effort.
CASE responded.
By leave granted, the Applicants responded to CASE's response and pointed out that the objections that CASE advanced were not valid, and the matter came on for argument before the Board at a pre-hearing conference on April 22, 1986.
Tr. 24349-422 (4/22/86).
CASE argued first on the schedule question (see Tr. 24359), its principal point based on a supposed " interrelationship" between the issued Results Reports and unidentified future Results Reports that posed the threat that the consideration now of the issued Results Reports would later prove to be moot.
aOn April 4, 1986, the Applicants served copies of the Results Reports in ISAP's I.a.4, I.b.3, II.b, III.d and VII.b.2 upon CASE, together with a notice of the availability of the working files associated therewith for inspection and copying.
There is an apparent typo in CASE's " Response to Board Questions" at 2 wherein it is asserted that the Results Reports were released on " April 14, 1986."
It p
is true that CASE waited until April 21st (the day before the prehearing conference) to review any of the Working Files. associated with these Results Reports, but that delay was attributable to CASE, not to the Applicants.
P
i
-During that argument, CASE conceded that "if [which we take to mean, "to the extent that"] each ISAP were truly self contained, that is it not only addressed the narrow question of whether this particular component was or was not built properly, but also looked for root causes and generic implications and answered all of the QA/QC questions within its boundaries," then CASE's objection to the schedule proposed by the Applicants would not apply.
Tr. 24362-63 (Mr. Roisman).
In response, the Applicants argued that, as to the Results Reports presently available and those to be expected in the near term, each of which deals with specific contentions raised either by the Staff's TRT or by some other external source, the arguments of CASE had no applicability and did not amount to a sufficient basis for deferring any litigation that might be required on those Reports.
At that point the Board invited a discussion of one particular Results Report, dealing with Action Plan I.a.4 (correspondence of certain electrical terminations with the drawings).
The Applicants pointed out that this Results Report was complete: -
9 "ISAP 1A4 is intended to be the complete response to the TRT Issue No. lA4, which has to do with whether or not the actual landings of certain cables [ sic: should have been conductors]
corresponded with what the drawing called for."
Tr. 24384.
The Board then asked where the assessment, for QA/QC purposes, of any found deficiencies would be made; the answer was that there were no deficiencies.
Tr. 24385.
Under the program plan and the action plan, had there been any deficiencies or trend of deviations, then the root cause and generic implications thereof would have been assessed.
(Indeed, this would have been done not only for possible QA/QC implications but also for possible hardware implications.)
- However, there were no found deficiencies and there were no found deviations in connection with the conductors assessed in Action Plan I.a.4 and, therefore, there was nothing of which to seek the " root'cause."
As stated, therefore, the Results Report was complete and ready for litigation.3 3Action Plan I.a.4 has its roots in allegations to the effect that construction craft was mislanding conductors and that QA/QC had been " buying off" on the mislanded conductors.
One investigates such an I
At the conclusion of the argument, CASE sought leave to make a post-argument submission.
That submission was to go to the issue of whether there was some reason why Results Report I.a.4 (or any of the other four Results Reports now available) was so interrelated with -- that is to say, so dependent upon the results of -- some other Results Report as to make the litigation of I.a.4 now an undertaking that has a high probability of wasting the Board's time and to make it an appropriate exercise of discretion to incur the inevitable delay that will result if these allegation by looking to see if such mislanded, apparently " bought off," conductors exist.
The TRT reviewed a massive number of conductors and found only six that were apparently landed contrary to the drawings (one of which, Cable NK 139853, is non-safety related and hence not subject to the Appendix B program); the TRT, regretfully, did no further investigation to determine whether mislandings were in fact the case.
Compare Results Report I.a.4 at sections 3.0 (pp. 2-3), 5.3 (pp. 12-13).
In addition to further investigation of the six TRT-identified conductors, none of which was found to constitute an example of a mislanded conductor and none of which supported the underlying allegation, the CPRT did its own additional investigation of the conductors at issue and found the same thing.
Since there were no mislanded conductors, the underlying allegation has been demonstrated to be false.
completed results reports are simply queued up for litigation in some later and larger hearings.
Specifically, CASE was authorized to "show an interconnection between this ISAP and subsequent ISAPs such'that it would not be proper to ask you to specifically-deal with this ISAP independently."
Tr.
24417.4 Under date of.May 5, 1986 CASE has filed what purports to be that submission.
- The Board also urged CASE "to consider the possibility that we could adopt the Staff's schedule but provide that for any particular ISAP where C.A.S.E.
has reason to believe that there's a strong interrelation to [ subsequent] ISAPs, that you'd be excused from the responsibility of responding independently."
Id. at 24418.
CASE's pleading, however, does.not address the requested consideration. i
.c
6 1
ARGUMENT With attachments, the CASE pleading entitled
" Response to Board Questions" is two inches high.
It contains some nine different claims that the Results Report for Action Plan I.a.4 is substantively inadequate.
With only one possible exception, however, all of what is in the CASE pleading goes to the merits of the issues that the Applicants are seeking a schedule for the litigation of, not to the question of when that litigation should be scheduled.
This is demonstrated by the discussion contained in the Addendum to this response.
The one CASE assertion that CASE might be relevant to the question of scheduling is its allegation that:
"[T]he key questions about the extent of the cable termination deficiencies, and the generic implications of these deficiencies [, ] are not answered by the Results Report
" Response to Board Questions" at 2.
This might be an argument relevant to scheduling if CASE were to attempt to demonstrate, as it has not, that these supposedly
" key questions" are going to be answered in another Results Report.
CASE makes no such assertion, however, most probably because CASE knows that the undescribed
future thing to which I.a.4 is supposedly " inter-related" (see " Response" at 1) is a phantom.
The phantom derives no substance from CASE's attempted legerdemain with the use of the word " deficiencies:"
.The Action Plan for item I.a.4, in section 4.5, states the acceptance criteria for each inspected conductor.
Any conductor not meeting these criteria constitutes a " deviation" as that term is used in the Program Plan.
A " deficiency" does not exist until one has a " deviation," and, in addition, until the deviation has been assessed for safety significance and been determined to be such that, if undetected and uncorrected, "would result in the loss of capability of the affected system, structure or component to perform its intended safety function.
For purposes of the CPRT Program, credit is not allowed for redundancy at the component, system, train or structure level."
See CPRT Program Plan section III(A) (page 7) and Appendix H, section C(2) (pages 6-8).
Root cause analysis is required only in the case of " deficiencies."
(See Results Report I.a.4, section 4.1.1.2 (page 4): "If one (1) deficiency has been found, a root cause evaluation of the deficiency would have been performed, and a x.
.g s
sample expansion in accordance with Appendix D undertaken.")
As the Results Report states, no deviations were found:
"The inspection program was performed using the methodology specified in Section 4.1.
No deviations from the acceptance criteria of Section 4.5 were found.
Two minor errors were discovered, which did not affect the adequacy of the terminations.
The identification of additional population members necessitated an additional sample inspection, which was also completed without finding any deviations from the acceptance criteria Results Report I.a.4, section 5.1 (page 8) (emphases added).
The Results Report goes on to state that
"[s]ince the activities carried out during the implementation of this action plan did not reveal any deficiencies, neither.a root cause nor a generic implications evaluation is necessary."
Id. section 5.4 (page 13).
Indeed, in context the Report is a tad droll: not only were there no deficiencies, there were no deviations; and not only was a root cause analysis not required, there was nothing of which to seek the cause. t
Given this, and given that CASE should and 5
apparently does understand the proper usage of the terminology, it is disappointing that CASE employs a misuse of the terminology in order to create a premise for the assertion that there must be future hearings on the expected root cause analyses of the " cable termination deficiencies, and the generic implications of these deficiencies"5 that is demonstrably false.
We add:
CASE may disagree with the scope and methodology of Action Plan I.a.4 (though we are unaware of any specific criticisms provided by CASE to the Applicants about this Action Plan in the more than a year in which it has been available).
CASE may disagree that there were no deviations (we think it just about impossible for even CASE to contend that there were any deficiencies).
Theoretically at least, CASE might even disagree that a root cause analysis is 5" Preliminary Analysis of Issue Specific Action Plan I.a.4" (attached as an addendum to the " CASE Response") at 14.
6" CASE Response" at 3 (emphasis added).,_
e-not necessary (assuming an identification of something to seek the root cause of).
But these hypothetical disagreements all go to the merits of the Results Report and whether this Board should find its conclusions persuasive.
They do not go to the question of scheduling.
This Action Plan is complete.
The Results Report is "self contained, that is it not only addressed the narrow question of whether (these] particular component [s were] built properly, it also looked for root causes and generic implications (of any that were not] and answered all of the QA/QC questions (if any]
within its boundaries."
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons and those set forth previously and during oral argument, the proposed schedule, as modified by the Staff (see Tr. 24380),
should be adopted by the Board.
Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Wooldridge Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &
Wooldridge 2001 Bryan Tower - Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone:
(214) 979-3000 A
Nicholas S.
Reynolds William A.
Horin Bishop, Liberman, Cook Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 857-9800 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 872-5000 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
R.
K.
Gad III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 4
Telephone:
(617) 423-6100
)
By:
i Thomas G. Dighan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III Dated:
May 20, 1986,
ADDENDUM:
The Nature of the CASE-Asserted I.a.4 Inadequacies The following is an abstract of the inadequacies asserted in CASE's " Response to Board Questions" and its attached " Preliminary Analysis of Issue Specific Action Plan I.a.4."
No Root Cause or Generic Implications Analysis.
It is asserted by CASE to be a defect in the Results Report that there is no root cause or generic implications analysis.
See " Response" at 3, 5, 6 ("yet-ISAP I.a.4 never even reaches'the questions of impact for [of]:
the deficiencies on the remainder of the plant or the electrical discipline"), " Preliminary Assessment" at 3 ("the identification of the issue was incomplete, in that it was narrowly defined to exclude quality concerns"), 8 ((t]he ISAP by itself does not address whether the issues have implications for deficiencies in the QA/QC program"), 10 (equating the IR "unsats" with " deficiencies"), 18 ff.
It appears that this assertion is grounded upon the erroneous belief that " deviations" or " deficiencies" were identified during the implementation of ISAP I.a.4.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report, which are ripe for hearing now (should CASE press the point).
No Expansion of Sample Size.
It is asserted by CASE that Appendix E of the CPRT Program Plan was not complied with because no sample expansion was triggered by the "unsats."
" Preliminary Assessment" at 13, 15.
This is similar to the previous complaint.
It is based upon the assumption, which is erroneous as a matter of fact, that an "unsat" is the same thing as a
" deviation" or a " deficiency;"
CASE appears not to understand how inspections are done, and it appears not to understand the resolution of the "unsats" in Action Plan I.a.4.7 Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
7An "unsat" results from the inability of an inspector to check off an item on his checklist, which typically (and by design) leaves the inspector with little discretion.
It may indicate a condition that is a deviation from acceptance criteria.
It may also, however, arise from a question the inspector is unable to resolve on his own (such as whether the blue of " low chromatic purity" was a non-conformance with the drawings, a matter properly called by the inspector to the attention of the Review Team Leader for determination).
It may also arise from a situation where the inspector is simply unable to complete his checklist for reasons unrelated to the conformance vel n.
t-Population Identification was by Project.
CASE complains-that the selection of the conductors constituting the populations was done by CPSES Project
. people, with CPRT oversight, rather than by the CPRT itself.
" Preliminary Assessment" at 11-13.
The conductor identification process, somewhat complex and tedious, involved no judgment or discretion.
Oversight by CPRT was 100%.
The Action Plan envisioned that the initial identifications would be done by Project.
CASE does not assert that any conductors that should have been included-were omitted.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
Sample Selection was by Project.
CASE complains that the selection of the random samples was done by CPSES Project people, with CPRT oversight, rather than non of the object to the criteria (such as where, because of a typographical error or mapping error in his list of cables, he is instructed to inspect a conductor that is non-existent or to compare a conductor to a drawing that does not (and was not intended to) reflect that conductor or where the selected conductor proves to be inaccessible).
r 9
by CPRT itself.
" Response" at 6, " Preliminary Assessment" at 11-13.
Similar to Population Identification, above; selection of samples was a rote undertaking involving no judgment or discretion (though a lot of tedious handwork).
Oversight by CPRT was 100%.
CASE does not assert sample selection was done improperly or that any errors remained'after the CPRT oversight process.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
Use of Sample Rather than 100% Inspection.
CASE notes that the first level of investigation of the population at issue was a sample inspection on the basis of random samples drawn at the 95/99 level, rather an inspection fo 100% of the items in the population.
" Response" at 6,
" Preliminary Assessment" at 3, 10, 11.
This is a criticism of the Action Plan, which'provides for precisely such a sample re-inspection in the first instance.
Action Plan section 4.1.1.2 (page 4).
Alternatively, this is just another aspect of CASE's unwillingness to recognize that no deficiencies (and no deviations) were found.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
i-Lack of " Independence" of CPRT Personnel.
CASE asserts a defect in the program in that the CPRT personnel lacked " independence."
" Response" at 6-7,
" Preliminary Assessment" at 17-18.
Actually, the challenge is made only in respect of the ERC component of the CPRT personnel involved in the this action plan
(" Preliminary Assessment" at 17); ERC did the re-inspections for the Electrical Review Team Leader.
See Results Report I.a.4 at section 4.2.3 (page 6).
The specific complaints are a repetition of the fact that initial identification of the conductors in the population and the samples to be selected therefrom was done by CPSES Project people and that CPSES Project personnel participated in the preparation of inspection procedures and the resolution of any questioned items and accompanied the ERC inspectors in the field.
No assertion is made that, because of this " lack of independence" (or otherwise), any of the conclusions reached in the Results Report is incorrect.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
Unstated Basis for Identifying Population Members.
CASE appears to assert a defect in the unavailability -
I..
Ek of the basis for identifying the conductors in the relevant population.
" Preliminary Assessment" at 3,
- 11.. CASE apparently does not understand its own exhibit,'which reveals on its face the identification attribute employed.'
Inadequate Checklists.
CASE notes an objection to the effect that the checklist employed during the implementation of the Action Plan was inadequate.
See
" Preliminary Assessment" at 4, 15 ff.,
18 ff.
This appears to be based on the hypothesis that the
' CASE employs the term "necessary to prevent core melt" with quotation marks but without attribution.
" Preliminary Assessment" at 3, 11.
(Also once, without quotes, " Preliminary Assessment" at 9.)
This is not a term used in the Action Plan and not a term that anyone associated with CPRT would employ.
The definition of the population is stated in the Action Plan at section 4.1.1 (page 3):
" essential (i.e.,
safety-related)
Class 1E conductors in the control room and cable spreading room, which are in circuits that interface with the Alternate Shutdown Panel.
This i
definition meshes perfectly with the statement of the selection criteria found in Exhibit 9 to the
" Preliminary Assessment."
~
i checklist should have included inspection attributes beyond the attribute for which the Action Plan was established; CASE does not appear to contend that the checklist was inadequate to accomplish the Action Plan f
as stated.
Resolution of this issue is a matter of the merits of the Results Report.
Disposition of "Unsats."
CASE states that an inadequacy lies in the fact that it was unable to r
determine whether CPSES Project QA/QC NCRs were written as a result of the "unsats."
" Preliminary Assessment" i
at 4, 8, 18 ff.
In addition, CASE perceives inadequate disclosure of the basis for determining that the "unsats" were not deviations.
" Preliminary Assessment" f
at 4, 17, 19.
It appears that CASE either does not understand or does not acknowledge the purpose of the Action Plan and that CASE does not understand the nature of the "unsats."'
All of these objections are based on false l.
presumptions, erroneous interpretations and, in l
1 J
'See note 7, supra.
t 4
19-I P
e
--- ~.,,,,
,,,,n--.
,.v,
-...~ng,,,... - -,,-,.-,,-- _ _.m
,--,--.,,,-nen,,n,-,-=,,.-n-e.,w,c-.----,-.,
. places, on simple errors of fact.
The Applicants are prepared to respond to each, and to demonstrate that each is groundless, at any hearings on the merits of' this Action Plan (should CASE at the appropriate time indicate a desire to contest this Results Report).
None of these items, however, goes to the question of whether this Action Plan is ripe for hearing; it is as ripe as ever it will be.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Robert K. Gad III one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on May 20, 1986, I made service of the within " Applicants' Response to ' Response to Board Questions'" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E.
Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch 881 W.
Outer Drive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washingt.on, D.C.
20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S.
Polk Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
i a-Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C.
20002 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B.
Johnson Geary S.
Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 Q'
=
21 mun---
q n$
33_
p
.