ML20212K683
| ML20212K683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1987 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Poch D ENERGY PROBE RESEARCH FOUNDATION (FORMERLY ENERGY |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2731 2.206, IEIN-83-80, NUDOCS 8703090389 | |
| Download: ML20212K683 (6) | |
Text
I 27W f uouq'o UNITED STATES q
g F'3
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%er k E n
l WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 q
%, v(/
March 5, 1987
)
1 Docket Nos.
MAR -61987%
DOCg7mca 5
(10 C.F.R. 5 2.206) 0 N:Er$ $[ " N Mr. Dave Poch f
Counsel to Eneroy Probe c/o Energy Probe 100 College Street Toronto, Canada MSG ILS
Dear Mr. Poch:
This is to acknowledge receipt of a Petition dated January 9, 1987 directed by you on behalf of Energy Probe and Western Reserve Alliance (Petitioners) to the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Petition has been assigned to my Office for a response. The Petition was submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 and sought immediate suspension of the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Licensees) due to alleged safety deficiencies.
The Petition alleged deficiencies in the pipe clamps used at the Perry facility and sought an independent design review with respect to these components. The Petition further alleged programmatic deficiencies at the General Electric Company, San Jose, California facility in the areas of Design Control and Quality Assurance /
Quality Control. The Petition alleges that such deficiencies potentially impact General Electric components supplied to all power plants including the Perry facility. The Petition claims that the NRC has been informed of this matter in letters of October 1985 and October 1986 from the Government Account-ability Project. 1)
With respect to the Petitioner's request for imediate action, specifically shutdown of the Perry facility, based upon the allegations contained in the Petition I decline to take such action.
1/
The Petition also alleges fraud on the part of the Licensees and the NRC
~
in the preparation of a Director's Decision issued with respect to the seismic adequacy of the Perry facility in light of the January 31, 1986 earthquake in the vicinity of that facility. See, Cleveland Electric l
Illuminating Company, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),
DD-86-4, 23 NRC 211, (1986). The Petition requests that the NRC withdraw i
that Director's Decision based upon Petitioners' belief that the NRC Office of Investigations has documented fraud in the preparation of that Decision. The allegation in the Petition is incorrect.
I am unaware of l
any investigation which calls into question my earlier Director's Decision.
Consequently, I decline to withdraw that Decision based upon the informa-tion provided in this Petition.
0703090389 870305
%d D
ADOCK 050 0
l p
. The allegations in this petition relative to pipe clamps are similar to allegations received earlier by the Commission concerning pipe clamps supplied by Western Piping and Enoircering (WPE) for several power plants, includirc Perry. As indicated in the enclosed copy of NRC's letter to WPE dated September 30, 1986, and the attached Inspection Report No. 99900302/86-01, nc items of nonconformance with purchase specifications have been identified. The clamps in question are sometimes called stiff pipe clamps to differentiate them from conventional pipe clamps which have been used for many years in high-pressure pipirg applications.
In corsidering the earlier allegations, the staff reviewed stiff clamp desicrs by several vendors and their applications by(various architect-engineers. As reported in Board Notification 82-105A reference 1.b.
of your Petition), the staff concluded that these relatively new clamps can result in lochlized piping stresses significantly higher than the stresses fror conventional pipe clamps. Piping designers who are accustomed to neglecting these localized stresses because of the low magnitude stresses associated with conventional pipe clamps might incorrectly assume that such stresses may be neglected with these new clamps.
For this reason, the staff issued IE Informatfor Notice No. 83-80 on November 23, 1983, calling attention to this possibility.
Subsequently, the NRC staff requested the licensee to provide specific information relative to the use of stiff pipe clamps at Perry Nuclear Power plant, Units I and 2 by letters dated March 19, 1984, February 19, 1985 and April 24, 1985.
The licensee's responses to those requests were provided by letters dated October 1, 1984, March 18, 1985 and June 14, 1985 respectively.
The NRC has reviewed the information submitted by the licensee and determined that no further action is required because the licensee has adequately addressed the concerns described in the IE Information Notice No. 83-80. Therefore, the immediate ection requested by the petition is not warranted.
Regarding ycur other allegation concerning General Electric components, the staff first reviewed Mr. Milam's primary concern, the issue of deferred verifi-cation, in 1983 and did not identify any significant safety issues. Subsequent to receipt of the October 5, 1985 letter fren the Government Accountebility Project (GAP), the staff has reviewed additional documents in GAP's offices and conducted inspections at GE's facility in San Jose. The purpose of these actions was to review further Mr. Milam's allegations and to review issues raised by Mr. Charles Stokes, a consultant for GAP. The NRC has not yet completed this review; however, no issues have been identified te date which i
l warrant the actions requested by the Petition.
l l
i I
i
e p
i
' The NRC staff will ccntinue to review the Petition and I'will issue a formal decision with regard to it ir. the reasonably near future. Please be advised that the Petition has also been. forwarded to the NRC's Office of Inspector end Auditor (0IA). OIA is responsible for considering allegations of NRC wronadcing.
A copy of the Notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Reaister is enclosed for your information.
Sincerelv.
hdAb Yf Harold
. Deht n, Director Office of Fuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Letter to k'PE from R. Heishman, NRC, dtd 9/30/86 with Inspection Report No. 99900302/86-01 2.
Federal Reaister Notice cc w/ enclosures and incoming:
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge l
l l
l
-s 4
3 cc:
Mr. Murray-R.' Edeiran, Vice President t
Nuclear Operations Group The Clevelano Electric _ Illuminating Company:
P.-0. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101' Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman,'Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.k'.
-Washington, D.lC.
20037 1
f 4
4'..
, _.,. -. _..,. _.... _... _, _.- =,, _ _. __.,~. - _, _ _ _,. _,,- _
.o
[
UNITED STATES r
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISGION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g
s*"*,
September 30, 1986 Docket No. 99900302/86-01 Western Piping and Engineering ATTN: Mr. Kenneth A. Friedman
(
President j
[
1485 Yosemite Avenue p
San F ancisco, California 94124 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by R. P. Corre[a of this office'on 11-12, 1986, of your facility in San Francisco, California.'acd to the-August discussions of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The purpose of_ the inspection was to examine Western Piping and Engineerirg records related to allegations concerning the cualification of personnel perfonning certification activities for pipe clamps and materials supplied by Western Piping and Engineering. Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
The Commission's enforcement policy pplicable to vendors states that prcdt. cts or services provided for use in nuclear activities are subject to certain requirements designed to ensure that the prooucts or services supplied that coulo affect safety are of high quality. NRC inspections of vendors are1 a part of the effort of ensuring that licensees fulfill their chligations ir.,'
determining that their vendors are meeting contractual cbligations with regard to applicable requirements including 10 CFR Part 50, Appe.ndix B.
During the inspection it was determined that the certifying engineer of pipa clamps manufactured by Western Piping and Engineering, was not a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Californu. However, as discussed in the enclosed report, these clamps met the requirurents of the ASME code specified on purchase specifications for certificatier., tranufacturing and testing which were to be used in specific United States nuclear pl6rts.
In addition, the same results were found in representative records of Siriilar pice clamps supplied by Western Piping and Engir.eering for customers prccuring cidtps for unspecified United States facilities and for foreign riuclear plants.
/
Western Piping and Engineering September 30, 1986
-The specific findings and references to the. pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosed inspection report.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Comission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public"Docua nt Room.
Should you havp. any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss then with you.
Sincecely, C
W Robert F. Heishman, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Canter Programs 0ffice of Inspection and Er.forcement
Enclosures:
- 1..Appandix A-Inspection Report Mo. s9S00302/86-01 2.
Appendix B-Inspection Data Sheets (1 page )
cc w/coclosures:
Gulf States Utilities Company ATTN: Mr. Wi Uiam J. Cahfil, Jr.
Senior Vice Presicent River Berid Nuclear Group Pcst Office Boy 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704
' Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company ATTN: hr. Murray R. Edeltc.an Vice President, Nuclear Operations
. Post Office Box 5000-
' Cleveland, Ohio 4101 Texas Utilities Generati'ng C'o hany ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 N. Olive Street, L.B. 81 Callas, Texas 75201 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
)
y
1
(
v,
.. Western Piping and Engineering September 30, 1986
)
cc w/ enclosures:
(continued)
Public Service Company of New Hampshire 1
ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrisen
. President and Chief Executive Officer Post Office Bex 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Group ATTN: Mr. J. Fox, Senior Program Manager 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California ' 95125 Paul-Munroe Hydraulics, Inc.
Energy Division ATTN: Mr. John M. Cabe 1701 W. Sequoia Avenue Orange, Califcrnia 92668 n
i r
i l
l l
l
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900302/86-01 DATE: 8/11-12/86 ON-SITE HOURS:
11 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Western Piping and Engineering ATTN: Mr. K. A. Friedman, President 1485 Yosemite Avenue San Francisco, California 94124 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. G. Pappas, Quality Assurance Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(4151 822-6464 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Design and engineering of vessels, appurtenances, component supports, piping subassemblies, and material supplier of ferrous forgings, plates and welding materials.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
7 f[
/q. P. Correia, Special ProjQts Injpection Section ate (SPIS) r APPROVED BY:
fotin W. Craig, Chief, SPIS, Vend %P Program Branch ate INSPECTION SASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 21, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
B.
SCOPE: The inspection consisted of an examination of quality assurance and engineering records related to allegations concerning the certifi-cation and manufacturing of pipe clamps supplied by Western Piping and Engineering to various U.S. nuclear plants, a foreign plant, and other U.S. customers.
l PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: River Bend (50 458); Perry (50-440); Comanche Peak (50-445); Peach Bottom (50-277); Seabrook (50-443); and Cofrentes (Spain).
i l
l ch G
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT NO.: 99900302/66-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 4
)
A.
VIOLATIONS:
There were no violations identified during this inspection.
B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
There were no nonconformances identified during this inspection.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
There were no open items from previous inspections.
E.
OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
The inspection at Western Piping and Engineering (WPE) was performed in response to allegations concerning the certifications of the engineer who performed either the design calculations or the certification of such calculations for clamps manufactured by WPE. The allegation was that the engineer was not a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of California. Also an allegation concerning the use of illicit materials in the clamps for the River Send huclear Plant was addressed.
1.
Pipe Clamp Certificaticn Activities The NRC inspector reviewec the WPE files of the engineer who performed design calculations and/or certification of such calculatiens. The files examined were of a recent WPE QA audit (dated 6/21/86) in which a resume of the engineer was included as-well-as an audit question-naire which followed the guidelines for demonstrating PE qualifica-tions established by Appendix C of the ASME Code,Section III, as required by Section 2 of ANSI /ASME N626.3 " Qualifications and Duties of Personnel Engaged in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Secticn III, Divisions 1 and 2, Certifying Activities."
In particular, paragraph 2.2 of ANSI /ASME N626.3 requires, in part, that personnel engaged in ASME certifying activities be a registered Professional Engineer in at least one state of the United State's or Province of Canada with specified years of experience in certifying activities as delineated in paragraphs 2.3 through 2.6 of the aforementioned standard.
,y
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERlhG SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT PAGE 3 of 4 NO.: 99900302/86-01 RESULTS:
Also, maintenance of current knowledge of Coce requirements and continued professional development in his or her speciality field through various means is required. The standard also requires in part, that the Owner, Designer, or N-Certificate Holder, as applicable, must review the cualification of the PE at least once every three years to assure that his/her qualifications have been maintained with a continuing record of all such activity included in the qualification records of the PE. The records demonstrated that the engineer identified in the allegation was at the time period in question, and is currently, a registered Professional Engineer in the states of Pennsylvania and New York but not in California.
The allegation specified that the following nuclear power plants have had clamps designed and manufactured by WPE and were certified by personnel not having a PE registration in the state of California:
River Bend, Perry, Peach Bottom, Comanche Peak, Seabrook and Cofrentes (a Spanish nuclear plant). The NRC inspector examined the WPE record files for each of these nuclear pcwer plants except Seabrook. WPE has no record of having designed or tranufactured a clamp which was to be used in the Seabrook facility. All purchase orders and technical specifications for these nuclear plants indicated that the clamp assemblies, as a minimum, be designed, in accordance to the require-ments of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsectior In addition, the record files for purchasers of WPE NF, Class 1.
clamps by the Paul Munroe Hydraulics Company, which did not specify the facility in which they were to be installed, also required the same ASME design certifications.
The file examined during the NRC inspection nicluced all requirements set forth in the ANSI /ASME standard referenced above.
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section VIII states that NRC inspections of vendors are conducted to determine whether they are meeting their contractual obligations to licensees. There were no recuirements identified in any of the examined record fiies which indicated that the design engineer certifying the clamps procured frcm WFE l
l be a registered PE in the state of California. This allegatfor. wes not substantiated and no nonconfortrances icund during this part cf the inspection, since the certifying engineer dio r.eet the ASME requireirents as required by procurement specifications.
o ORGANIZATION: WESTEPN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT NO.: 99900302/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 4 2.
Materials in Pipe Clamps supplied for River Bend The allegation that pipe clamps supplied for the River Bend Nuclear Power Plant contained improper materials was reviewed. All WPE clamps designed and manufactured for the River Bend facility were purchased by General Electric (GE) (ref: GE P0 No. 205 AM 674). GE require-ments for certifications, data sheets, drawings, codes and standards were examined and found in WPE QA records including GE QA certifica-tion that their requirements were met. All materials, their respec-tive certifications for compliance to P0 specifications, both non-destructive examinations and destructive testing requirements, chemical analyses and results were reviewed. All WPE nonconformance reports (NCR) written during the design and manufacturing of the River Bend clamps were reviewed. Of the twelve tntal NCR's written, ten were dispositioned with appropriated approvals for acceptance or rejection. Two NCR's were voided upon discovery that the suspected nonconformance was not valid. All nonconformances disposition "use-as-is" were justified by either being within code requirements or included an engineering analyses with results being acceptable without compromising code requirements. Based upon the documents reviewed, pipe clamps supplied by WPE were manufactured in accordance with the utility's purchase specifications.
The allegation was not substantiated and no items of nonconformance were identified.
F.
PERSONS CONTACTED K. A. Friedman, President, WPE M. Wright, Project Mar.ager, WPE G. Pappas, Cuality Assurance Manager, WPE
IpJSPECTO R b b (oiZE2EIA Do cMai.T e40.
DIOt>3db Sc0PE -$6 DOCOt1ENTS E X Atild E D Rcroar t46. t$ (, _- Of PnGE I
0 5:
I 8tEV-DATE TtRE /508.3acT "l,$" ('YS,n *7.na.o r Q. A. sifr$4Doir uvat_t FicATIon (=1te Fort. tiepst.y 5:4Ar tigt gjoa x,,ejutrug g
gg B}l WEM EV A7__ $1.Pi 8VQ. AAQ,,__EN_G INEER.tuq___G1. A,
g'og, gwg. 6Eng C. Lamps )Fvitev Seto)
W s.".A G = Pis)#v6 f tE% a,s.1AM, FtLE ON p,gg
( Cti. GE e o.
- 2 0S aft (,74 pe.v l Wd5%.RU P4 Plats ( GJUGsMEtitsui FtLC, ON Rg qsit g3E.@ + l Ct.A*ng s 24 u 2Vj 3
Fttt:
e, _ 2, g ooy gy.
7 0g _4,n m u/ f'G E s s.E oro ( eit T i r i e r 'os Ret u'os OF F' N! < '^mf I. D ev o.
t t z.->, s - o g - z 4 s 2 o - oT i' >. 5 2 60 N / S2.9 o-m.-f
~
F t t. E.
FiJ E y 7.
ont 001
-i Ptti e e t AT
- on t sPE Ft LE a"
to PG. FiLC,ou C 6 n n o^^ iiC PLEA r._. Spg g Fu A re.au l 3 2. "j - m5 - % A g,,, 9 E.
FtLE vid 9v.oca o c u o'n 2.
- s per. t F t ( A TiuA, ( GE). 23 A40(s t - PoV 'l
'7 r i te_..
ts pE g.( Lg2 orJ pat 4L estoNe2us. ti-jpgau itj _ p o, a g(,4 gg S
FtL t cu, % n (spa,v w n,,( W rAc.iui g )
o t o t 1. 4 p,g
, og /.;/ g rog 4
P-R t. *h*A
'It+E. Ss'Pt.y OL N US-S >I% s**
Lfav.g w ie vT-i t
GGan.n A u C v~0i T ouw; F ort b El' b
~-
_en _(, O_ct_. /\\_.... g > C.._r.s.s._o_E__ _._3Arve A v 3 I, ' l '1 -'1 5_. _ _. _
~
- - ~ ~ - - - -
TVPE or not; D *J G - DetW s HG L T R. - L.E Y T E R syt:(- sPf ciricntiod gegn l*got E ntal2 C
_~
gjigtg, q Ig i1 A N o A l-.
.w
7 2
[7590-01}-
NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-4411 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
(PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2)
RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR-DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Notice is hereby given that, by a Petition pursuant to 10.C.F.R.s 2.206 dated January 9, 1987. Energy Probe and Western Reserve Alliance (Petitioners) requested that the Perry Nuclear Power Plant of the Cleveland Electric
. Illuminating Company, et al.
(Licensees) be shut dcwn for alleged safety violations.
The Petition alleged deficiencies with 'certain plant components, specifically pipe clamps, and sought an independent design review of this component for the Perry facility.
The Petition further alleged programatic deficiencies in Design Control and Quality Assurafice/ Quality Contro; at the General Electric facility in San Jose, California.
The Petition alleged that such programmatic deficiencies potentially impact upon General Electric components supplied ' to the Perry facility.
The Petition is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 ?.PC6 uf the
' Commission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on
z, g-
,I '.'
2 the request within a reasonable. time. ~A copy of'the Petition is available~for
. inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room,-1717-li Street,-N.W.,
' Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the Local.Public Document Room for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant located at.the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio. 44081.
FOR THE' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-M.
A N-FrankJ.Mhaglia,ActincDirector..
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation L-Dated at Bethesda, Marvland this 5 day of March
, 1987,
~