ML20212M620
| ML20212M620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1987 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212K689 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8703120101 | |
| Download: ML20212M620 (6) | |
Text
.,..
y 4.
c 6
[7590-01]
J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[DocketNos. 50-440. 50-4411 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
(PERRY: NUCLEAR POWER. PLANT, UNITS 1-8 2)
RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ?.206 Notice is hereby given that, by a Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R ! 2.206
. dated January 9,1987, Energy Proce and Western Reserve Alliance (Petitioners) requested that the Perry Nuclear Power Plant of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.
(Licensees)beshutdcwn'forallegedsafety v iol a tions.-
.'The Petition alleged deficiencies with certain plant components,.
specifically pipe clamps, and sought an independent desian review of this component for the Perry facility. The Petition further alleged programmatic deficiencies in Design Control and Quality Assurance / Quality Control at the General Electric facility in San Jose, California. The Petitior. 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. Q 2.PC6 of the Commission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on 8703120101 870305 DR ADOCK 05000440 PDR
,c
' L..,
A 4
2 I
-the request within a reasonable time. A copy of the Petition is.available~ for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717_H 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 REGULATOPY COMMISSION c $f d (. h it FrankJ.Mhaglia,ActincDirector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5 day of March -
1987..
1
F,~
^
^
. i,
'o
' UNITED STATES
[\\ 3%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'7 WASHINGTON, D. C 20555
,g y/
March 5, 1987 Docket Nos.
50 440 50-441 (10 C.F.P. 5 2.206)
Mr. Donald L. Schlemmer Western. Reserve Alliance
-1616 P Street, N. W.
Suite 160 Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Mr. Schlemmer:
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 Comission (NRC). The Petition has been assigned to my Office for a response. The Petition was submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ! 2.206 and sought imediate 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 inanediate 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 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 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 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.
M /Qt/\\O M i(l7 A
ysww a v.>
~
~~
- p. _ _ ; :.
j
_,m 4..
y,<
... 1 The allegations in this petition relative to pipe clamps are similar'to allegations received earlier by.the Commission concerning pipe clamps sunplied by k'estern Piping and Engineering (WFE) for several power plants, including
' Perry.. As indicated in the enclosu' copy of NRC's-letter to WPE dated Septeirber 30,19P6,'and the attached Inspection Report No.- 99900302/86-01, rc.
items of nonconformance with perchase specifications have been identifieck The clamps in question are sometimes called stiff pipe clamps to differentiate' theci from conventional pipe' clamps which have been used for riany_ years in higt-pressure pipinc applications.
In considerino.the earlier allegatiors, the staf f reviewed stiff clamp. designs by several vendors and their applications by(various I
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 localized piping stresses significantly higher than the stresses -.f ron 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 negiccted with these new clamps. For this reason, the staff issued IE Information Notice No. 83-80 on November 23,.1983, calling attention to this pessibility.
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 1 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 action requested by the petition is not warranted.
Regarding your other alleoation 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. Subsequen' to receipt of the October 5, 1985 letter from the Government Accountability Project (GAP), the staff has reviewed additional documents in GAF's offices and 4
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 to date which warrant the actions requested by the Petition.
1
!~
l i.
F.
The NRC staff will continue to review the Petition and I will issue a formal decision with regard to it in the reasonably near future. Please be advised that the Petition has also been forwarded to the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A). CIA is responsible for ccrsidering allegations of NRC wrongdoing.
A copy of the Notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely,n 1
Harold R.
.!nto n,
ctor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Letter to WPE from R. Peishman, NRC, dtd 9/30/86 with Inspection Report No. 99900302/86-01 2.
Federal Reafster Notice cc w/ enclosures and incoming:
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Shaw, Pittman, Pcits & Trowbridge
f:
'.a a
'CC:
Mr. Murray R. Edelman,.Vice Presidert.
Nuclear Operations Group The Cleveland Electric illurir.ating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland,-Ohio 44101 Jay E. Silberg, Esa.
'Shaw,,Pittman, Potts le Trowbridge-2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington,-D. C.
20037 e
f i
G
-t
-~
D il c -
=<
e f ' ', ;.
\\P '
3+
n.h 3
UNITED STATES c,,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
.y-(
g WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t
r.
p 5
?%,,?....$
1 September 30,~1986 i Docket No. 99900302/86-01 Western Piping and Engineering ATTN: Mr. Kenneth A. Friedman President
-1485 Yosemite. Avenue
. San Francisco, California 94124 Gentlemen:
-This refers to the inspection conducted by R. P. Correia of this office on of your facility in San Francisco, California and to the August:11-12, 1986, 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 Engineering records related to allegations concerning the qualification of personnel perfoming 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 applicable to vendors states that prcducts or services provided for use in nuclear activities are subject to certain recuirements designed to ensure that the prooucts or services supplied that coulo affect safety are of high quality. NRC inspections of vendors are a part of the effert of ensuring that licensees fulfill the.ir chligations ir.
determining that their vendors are meeting contractual obligations with regard
~
to applicable requirements including 10 CFR Part 50, Appe.ndix B.
During the inspection it was determined that the certifying engineer of pipe clamps manufactured by Western Piping and Engineering, was not a registered Professional Engineer in the state of California. However, as discussed in the enclosed report, these clamps met the requirements of the ASME code specified on purchase specifications for certificatior, tranufacturing and In testing which were to be used in specific-United States nuclear plarts.
addition, the same results were found in representative records of Siriilar pipe clamps supplied by Western Piping and Engir.eering for customers prccuring cionps for unspecified United States facilities and for foreign t.uclear plants.
1 6610660.1 e ago
=.
(T ',
--. ~...... _. _...
y
- 2.-
Western Piping and Engineering September 30, 1986 The specific f$ndings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosed inspection report.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, c3 U
Robert F. Heishman, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
Appendix A-Inspection Report No. 99900302/86-01 1.
Appendix B-Inspection Data Sheets (1 page )
2.
cc w/ enclosures:
Gulf States Utilities Company ATTN: Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Senior Vice President River Bend Nuclear Group Pcst Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ATTN: hr. Murray R. Edelran Vice President., Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 N. Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTH: Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
.m
0*<n L'-
Western Piping and Engineering September 30, l'986
~ cc. w/enclosdres:
(continued)
Public Service Company of New !!ampshire ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrisen President and Chief Executive Officer Post Office Bcx 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, Califerr.ia 92668 m
e
_-,..,.m.
-..m..
-r
. m.
._.,m,,_..,.... ~,
,,._m..,-_.
C.
I ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION-INSPECTION REPORT DATE: 8/11-12/86 ON-SITE HOURS-11 NO.: 99900302/86-01 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 Asst:rance Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(4151 822-6464 Design and engineering of vessels, appurtenances, NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY:
component supports, piping subassemblies, and material supplier of ferrous forgings, plates and welding materials.
_s
[b r>
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
Date
/{. P. Correia, Special Projgts Injpection Section (SPIS) r APPROVED BY:
ate
{chn W. Craig, Chief, SPIS, Vend %P Program Branch INSPECT!0h SASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES: 10 CFR Part 21, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
l The inspection consisted of an examination of quality assurance SCOPE:
B.
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.
i River Bend (50-458); Perry (50-440); Comanche Peak PLANT SITE APPLICAPILITY:
(50-445);PeachBottom(50-277);Seabrook(50-443);andCofrentes(Spain).
h
)
~~
r, o
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION PAGE 2 of 4 REPORT RESULTS:
NO.: 99900302/66-01 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 Also an allegation concerning the use of illicit materials California.
in the clamps for the River Ber.d huclear Plant was addressed.
1.
Pipe Clamp Certificatien Activities The NRC inspector reviewec the WPE files of the engineer who performed The design calculations and/or certification of su'ch calculaticns.
files examined were of a recent WPE 0A audit (dated 6/21/86) in which i
a resure of the engineer was included es-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 i
required by Section 2 of ANSI /ASME N626.3 " Qualifications and Duties l
of Persennel Ergaged in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Ccde, Secticn III, Divisions 1 and 2, Certifying Activities."
In particular, paragraph 2.2 of ANSI /ASPE 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 States or Province of i
Canada with specified years of experience in certifying activities as delineated in paragraphs 2.3 through 2.6 of the aforementioned standard.
l l
0
r.
~
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING l
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1
l INSPECTION PAC-E 3 of 4 REPORT RESULTS:
N0.: 99900302/86-01 Also, maintenance of current knowledge of Code requirements and continued professional development in his or her speciality field The standard also requires in through various means is required.
part, that the Owner, Designer, or M-Certificate Holder, as applicable, must review the qualification 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 The records demonstrated that the engineer records of the PE.
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 WPE has files for each of these nuclear pcwer plants except Seabrook.
no record of having designed or manufactured a clamp which was to be All purchase orders and technical used in the Seabrook facility.
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, Subsection 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 some ASME design certifications.
The file examined curing the NRC inspection included 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 requirements identified in any of the examined record files which indicated that the design engineer certifying the clacps procurec frcm WPE This allegatior. wes be a registered PE in the state of California.
not substantiated and no nonconferrances fcund during this part cf the inspection, since the certifying engineer dio neet the ASME requirements as required by procurement specifications.
e
.n
.. w.:. =
ORGANIZATION: WESTERN PIPING AND ENGINEERING SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION PAGE 4 of 4 REPORT NO.: 99900302/86-01 RESULTS:
Materials in Pipe Clamps supplied for River Bend 2.
The allegation that pipe clamps supplied for the River Bend Nuclear All WPE clamps Power Plant contained improper materials was reviewed.
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 0A 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 total NCR's written, ten were dispositioncd with appropriated approvals for acceptance or Two NCR's were voided upon discovery that the suspected rejection.
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, Quality Assurance Manager, WPE
- - -. ~ - -,.. - - -.
~
l
- t
~
)
7
~
y
~
7 d
s.
WD
. v u
i 2
_e e
.i.
.c
~
L E
o u
u
,_o A
p A
e
~
f t
~
_4 2,
3 G
4 u
9 w {.w
_e 0
2 2
s t
S h
3 D
wm f
o s
G 9
D
/
5 t
o O I
4 r
g u
m A
g, n
o N
E f
(
P.
f e
E in I
h [E t
A.
0 a
v Wr e
P.
t p
6 3
l i
C m
4 L
_u O
o 2
s
(.
o e
H o L
f A
5 3
i
. v, d
t 7
G 4
.a s
t l
T
.p a
A
+
)
c
(
g aI H
V 3p u
w o
.s W
O 4
t
/
._(
7 S'
u E
o t
P f.
i y
E P
r u
r e
s p, r y.t G
u A
~-
. =L E
E~
t F
o
.t e
i s
g A. r<v y.
e.)l i
u
~j
.m o
c, rG g
N3-i u
F k
l t
o c n t
e i
e t
ore i.
i.
i.
.r sl v t
t g-i u
t.
c a d
.c a
1 R
c c
- t i
t
.n p
O Av e
r i
o dm s
s t
S e
v p
F i. L o
i R c_ P e
g.
y s
i i
j-o p
n E
ot t
a
.s f
E. E u e%.
v.
~
E%9 Lu
's a.
o4 i
A t
[2 t
c.
c T
1I l
i S
G. E V F
i t
Wh-t c
e P
c e
N E
2 t
C v
/
M.
E_.t s
O u
i O
.r t
5, r.
r c
N o
s i
t t
N t
n o
/.
I D_ c,, A h 7 s
i 8
t o
o
)
s A
0 A
B r
o E
if A
g tr v
D 5
T A.
e o
E
/
AA ASw,ro a
2 n,
t F e._
.~
A.
C 14 0 e
i u
3, v_
.d y
n.
I Ggoo T
G := 2 A
u N
P P
g s%
g e
s F >
%
- Ge w 2 t
4 g
a r
C u r.
I. 9 t
i L
s t
4
'o A
T A
t-E
.(
P i
T,,
M d
d i
E 0 Pa. g oi
'e. o o
r r
t 0
v s
o,
(. e o-z o
i g
'o o
~
S il e
90 s
.A v
0 C-t, u
t E
E E
o c
T ol p
t i
o E.
L L
L D E '. E.
s N
uM G
>A F.
F f
s a
t t
i i
u p.
i WE N.
E i
E2 F
a,-
y 1
n g_
W 3-O_
s g
t t
G3 E.
G q
E e
t l
J i
t o 5'
t t
c c
A.
t C Ee P z.
t a ;
i u
P P
e p
e
.En G,, -
R.
t o
QB w( W W
u L I
a P
D s
E T
E T
C. ~
T n
L D
R V
E t
r.
A I
t I
E R
I t
w f
I o
w.
o v
(
eo t
oW 10l. e.
c 4
o f0A.
8 GICud.
p t HF0J 8
T g_.
. o i iE A.
- W l
C 1
. D h 'f t
a se 8
=
t
.k g
t R
on o
f t
_t
(
T. M F PPrts.
u e. g q
L L
L L
o u
O DSPs}.
g
{
P t
t I
t c -
(so Q
- e. p F
F F
t E
p E
n E
P. t g g
P P
, P g i
(
t S o V WPgs N c m.
. E T DSg s
g e
I S sw 2 3 A,
6 7
g a
~
1-I
[^
[,. _
[7590-OlI' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket Nos.
50-440, 50-4411 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLlHINATIN'G CCFPANY'. ET AL~.
(PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNITS 1 & 2)
RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ?.206 Notice is hereby-'given that, by a Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R 6 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 down for alleged safety violations.
The Petition alleged deficiencies with certain plant components, specifically pipe clamps, and snught an independent design review of this cenponent for the Perry facility. The Petition further alleged programmatic deficiencies in Design Control and Quality Assurance /Cuality Control 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. Q 2.7CC of the Commission's regulations, and accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on a e iA l
1 /-W L h
YL..' ' ;;
.-w
. c
.-2_
~
'E Lthe request within'aLreasonable-time.
_A copy:of the Petition is available for-inspection,in ths Commission's Public Document Room,~ 1717 H Street, N1,
{s-ly,jr1 ' Washington,-'D.C. ~20555'and at the Local Public Document-Room for the Perrp-
~
-Nuclear Power Plantilocated at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street.
~
- P' erry. 0hio- ~ 44081'.
FOR.THE NUCLEAR REGUL. ATOPY COMMISSION-f Frank J.-M aglia, Actinc Director Office of Nuclear-Reactor Regulatio.n
~
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5 day of. March
, 1987
.a s
3 s
f?-
g 4
[.
- e,
January 9,
1987
. p g.7 p.
' Honorable Chairman Lando Zech-
'87 J7 '15 nr 6 Honorable. James Asselstine g.
Honorable Thomas Roberts Honorable Frederick Bernthal' United. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Perry l & Perry 2
Dear Commissioners:
Energy Probe and the Western Reserve Alliance (WRA) request that the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission e (NRC) take immediate action to protect the public health and safety of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Canadian residents and the international shipping lanes of.the Great Lakes through the following actions:
1.
. Require the suspension of the operating license of Perry Plant, and order an immediate shutdown to protect the public health and. sa fety of the local population because of gross violations of 10 CFR 50, concerning
'the design, manufacture and installation of vital plant.
pipe support components for Class 1 and Safety Related piping systems,.which by f ailure could lead to a loss of cooling accident (LOCA), which may lead to a release of radioactive materials to the general public. These pipe support components are ' pipe clamps which restrain the piping during an upset or emergency condition, such
-e as during a seismic event.
Require an independent design review by qualified
- 2..
consultants to evaluate the design of these pipe clamps, and any interaction of their effect on the pipe wall, for compliance with stated Code and legal requirements.
3.
Determine if any deliberate or f raudulent 4:tions were perpetrated by the parties involve 1, and to investigste the cognizant persons who long had the knowledge of said deficiencies, but took no action, for whatever reasons, and to prosecute all criminal matters as stated in 10 C.F.R. 50, or under the U.S. Justice I
Department.
t 4.
Require a complete and immedtate removal of all defective or inappropriate General Electric component s from the Perry nuclear plants whose existence was brought to the attention of the NRC by the Governmen t i
I b L W 4 N 4/ L l 1 g
~
~
i,'
?
- 1 Accountability l Project by letter in October-of 1985 and
~
October of 1986, h
Dais'should be accomplished through ' a Director's Order for:
a.-
. An 'immediate and permanent halt on all construction / operation and any other activity with-the exception of the permanent removal of ali. radioactive
, ~
, materials at the Perry nuclear plant site.
h
'b.
The establishment of-a special inspection teamLto
[
review allegations that are enclosed. ItLis of prime
[
importance that this team be completely independent; since the current NRC QC-and QA inspections and other
-special inspection teams have failed ~to adequately deal with: the. enclosed allegations. The inspection team must consist of inspectors from different regions other than Region III_and others from outside the NRC itself. WRA request that the outside inspectors come from the Government Accountability Project (GAP), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Ralph Nade r's Public
-Citizen and '4HB Technical Associates.
I.
BACKGROUND
, Perry is a two unit station. It is being built / operated by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating C3mpany (CEI).
Perry Unit.1 has received a f'lil power license from the : RC.
Uni t 2 is allegedly 46 per cent complete. Hosever, the degree of cannibalizing of Unit 2 that has taken place since its
~
" unofficial" abandonment makes that estimate fanciful at best.
As a result of severe financial problems, as well as con-struction and operational difficulties at the Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, and Perry sites, Toledo Edison (TE) and CEI joined forces to form a holding company called Centeriar Energy Corporation (CEC) (formerly North ilolding Company). OEC filed an application with the Securities an! Exchange Commis s ion (S EC) requesting an order of the Commission approving its acquisition of all the outstanding common stock of CEI and TE.
Senate investigations, testimony before Ohio House Subcommittees, and other soure2s have all indicated heavy influ-ence of organized crime at the plants.
The Western Reserve Alliance (WRA) contacted the Government Accountability Project (GAP) because of the large number of work-ers and former workers that were contacting WR A.
Since that time GAP has been advising and assisting WRA in regard to dealing with
'the numerous allegations made by the large number of whistleblowers that contacted WRA.
- 2
4' WRA cnd numerous othar consumer groupe raised the issues
-concerning; major' earthquake faults near the Perry nuclear power plants.and a fault..line 'cnr the plant site.. An earthquake of a 1-magnitude of approximately. 5.0 on the - Richter scale struck Janu-ary 31, 1986.
Issues were raised in WRA's 2.206 petition before the Com-
. mission on February 4,.1986. Subsequently the NRC denied WRA's 2.206 petition of. February 4, 1986. The denial of this petition u
was based for the most part on CEI and NRC investigativeL staf f reports ' on scores of allegations made by whistleblowers at the
' Perry plant that were contained in the February 4, 1986 petition.
1 Energy Probe and WRA have a good f aith reason and belief that the s
NRC and CEI staff reports were essentially fraudulent. Energy
[
Probe and WRA have good reason ~ and belief that the NRC now has e
through the Office of Investigation (O I) documented the f
. fraudulent investigation upon which the NRC based their denial of i
WRA's 2.206. petition. Energy Probe and WRA contend that the NRC is under an affirmative duty to reverse their-denial of WRA's February 4, 1986 2.206 petition.
WRA';s February 4, 1986. petition also stated the following:
" GAP acknowledges the lead role that it has played in investigat-ing and submitting the allegations and documentation regarding the - Perry site. GAP will. continue to follow up these and any subsequent allegations and documentation. GAP has turned this material over to OCRE and WRA. WRA is to be considered the formal filers of this petition pursuant - to 10 C.F.R. 2.206. GAP intends to continue its investigations into the situation at the Perry f acility and will turn over any new materials to OCRE and WRA t o be added to this their present petition under 10 C. F. R.
2.206 or any new or different filings that WRA may deem needed in the future." GAP has investigated the matters contained in this 2.206 petition and the NRC should consider this a continuation and expansion of the investigation into Perry.
II. - LEGAL BASIS A.
Legal Requirements The-law gives the Commission broad discretion to revoke, suspend, or modify the construction permit of an NRC licensee. 4 2 U.S.C. 2.206 states that:
(a) Any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, as appropriate, to institute T proceeding pursuant to S.
2.206 to modify, suspend or revoke a licence, or for such other action as may be proper...
B.
Criteria to Exercise Discretion According to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, the NRC "may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or revoke a license or for such 3-
6
- 'othor cetion ec may be proper by corving on the liconece an order to show cause which will: (1) allege the violations ~ with which-the licensee is charged, or the potentially hazardous condition i-or.other facts deemed to be ;suf ficient ground far the proposed action." As. interpreted by the Proposed General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Action, published in the Federal Register, 44 Fed. Reg. 66754, Oct. 7, 19 80 (10 C.F.R. 2.204), suspending orders can be used to remove a threat to the public health and safety, the common defense and security or environment.
C. Specific Bases for Suspension 3
It is our good faith belief that the NRC currently has in its possession documented evidence within the Of fice of Investigation that the reports issued by CEI and the NRC concern-ing WRA's February 4, 1986 2.206 petition were created in a
~ deliberately fraudulent manner and that these, reports were used as the basis for denial of WRA's February 4, 1986 petition. It is our belief that these fraudulent reports were created by CEI-and the NRC because.a legitimate NRC investigation would have confirmed WRA's. original contentions concerning the seismic de-sign inadequacy of the plant. It is our further belief that during the entire construction of the Perry plants CEI has demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue the minimum necessary commitment to comply with the laws and procedures surrounding the construction of the Perry power plants.
'The -legal requirements for nuclear piping are given in reference 6, paragraph IV, list of references, which have been researched through Mr. William Omstead, Of fice of the Executive Legal Director, NRC. This shows the chain of legal authority on all aspects of regulation for nuclear piping, down to the system component parts.
In view of the seismic design ground motion engineering of Perry being substantially below that recorded during the January 31, 1985 earthquake, having substandard seismic snubber pipe clamps on the critical piping system warrants a revocation of the plant operating license at Perry. The extent of Class 1 and safety related systems having these illegal and substandard pipe clamps should prompt an immediate suspension / revocation of the plant operating license.
III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND SUBSTANTIATING DOCUMENTATION The following is a list of allegat. ions and documentation given to GAP / Energy Probe /WRA by various whistleblowers through the course of the investigations regarding the Perry plants.
Energy Probe and WRA contend that these issues have been w
- bfought to the Commission's attention ~ and that the Commission 'has -
'not-responded in good faith. Through this petition, Energy Probe and WRA request a complete halt.to bad f aith activities on the.
L part of the NRC and/or its staff.
VI A'.
List of Technical / Legal De fic iencie s
_1.
The pipe clamps furnished by Western Piping & Engineer--
ing Co. -(WPE), 1428 Yosemite Ave., San Francisco, CA 94124, are b
of two principal'_ types: single connection clamps, and double j.
connection clamps. These pipe clamps are used on Class '1 and i
Safety Related piping systems,- whose pipe material may be stain-l' less steel or carbon steel. The single connection WPE pipe clamp is of a novel design, _which -is to ~ eliminate thermal constraint r-
. stress to the' pipe wall due to any diametric pipe' expansion mismatch to the clamp by-any dissimilar material expansion rates.
This.is accomplished by' making the clamp U-bar expand-with pipe L
expansion. Large thermal constraint loads can cause dangerous stress to the pipe wall, and must be accounted for by the piping designers. (See reference Ib.)
2.
The pipe clamp design and fabrication criteria are.
stated in the Perry plant preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Report (PSAR and FSAR, respectively) which under.the requirements
[
of 10 CFR 50, state that the American Society of Mechanical Engi -
L neers (ASME) Code governs, and in this case, for the pipe clamps, it is Subsection NF (see reference 2b). The pipe clamps are " fur-nished to" that they are in compliance with said Code by statement and certification. (See reference 3.)
3.
However, serious deficiencies exist in these single connection clamps that are in violation of said code, as follows:
a.) The code states that the design of the pipe clamps must be. certified by a professional engineer cognizant in his discipline.. The engineer that certified the design was not a
' licensed engineer in California, the state in which he was practicing, nor was he licensed in the discipline that covered said pipe clamps design which is mechanical engineering, as Mr.
Thailer is a structural engineer. In fact, the clamp certifications are null and void and may be criminal. (See refer-ence 4.)
b.) Critical parts of said pipe clamps are in violation of the Code. The following parts have been exempted by the manufacturer from being under the jurisdiction of the code f or design, materials and fabrication, by gross judgment error and without seeking qualification by the ASME Code Committee:
- 1. Clamp shoe, the part between the pipe and Icad bar.
2.
Load nut load washers.
- 3. Jan nut s. t
Failure of these parts due to design or materials will e
prevent the clamp from performing its intended f unction, and could thereby lead to piping failure should the dynamic loads be unmitigated, which could cause a nuclear accident.
The exemption of these part ma terials by the manu fse-turer may be deliberately improper, as he long knew that these should be code materials..
This violation was reportel to the NRC on June 7, 1982 and to the Chairman on January 25, 1984 as a generic deficiency, in confidence.
A code case concerning this matter has been submitted to the ASME (see re fe rence 5.),
to bring final determination.
c.) The installation instructions of the clamp preload (torque) requirements are in error, causing an installed prelosd of double that intendel, by which resulting load is signi ficantly greater than the design load; and these overloads have caused stresses in the pipe wall unaccounted for in the design, which could cause the pipe to burst and lead to a LOCA. (See reference Ib and Note: A secrecy agreement, reference 7, prevents the pro-duction of this evidence at this time.)
d.) GAP's October 1985 letter to the NRC Commissioners identified potentially serious deficiencies in the Design Control, Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) p r og ra m's fa-cility in San Jose, Cali forn i a.
These programmatic deficiencies were identified by a fermer GE engineer. The deficiencies poten-tially impact upon GE components supplied to all power plants utilizing GE equipment. Published reports indicate that Perry is one of these plants.
GAP's letter to the Commissioners shows that although GAP had been in contact with GE for over a year, GE seems to have been unable to identify and correct the internally reported prob-lems including those that affect Perry. GAP slso pointed out that as of the date of their letter GE had not voluntarily reportel the QA/QC deficiencies to the commission. Instead GAP's letter indicates GE continues to insist that it has almost na recards indicating any possible deficiencies in its Design 7antrol and QA/QC program, except sith respect to the problems al ready confirmed by the NRC. The GAP letter indicates that th is is nr>t possible because, "The former GE engineer had, however, provided detailed reports notifying his supervisors of numerous actual and potential violations." Energy Probe and WRA also share GAP's stated concern that there have also been more violations at GE --
specifically, the destruction of nuclear safety related documents. GAP has thus officially notified the NRC of po-tentially serious generic problems reportable under 10 C.F.R. Part 21, which apparently have a serious impact at the Perry plants. The NRC handling of this official noti fication has been grossly inadequate.
~
LEnergy Probe and WRA have good f aith and reason'to believe that 'some of the problems that.the GAP October 198 5 letter to the NRC Commissioners mention impact specifically on the Perry nucle-
'ar plant. Specifically, the NRC has been. unable to successfully audit the'GE Project. Energy Probe and WRA contend that iefective GE components now exist at the Perry nuclear plants and the regulatory audit-_ systems have failed.to detect the programma ti:.
design control deficier.cies, and have failed to follow through successfully in monitoring corrective action even af ter confirm-ing violations.
The NRC/GE QA/QC breakdowns have laf fectel the Perry Plants in -some of the following ways as they relate to design deficien-cies: -(l) knowingly builiing products differently than indicated by the construction dra aing; (2) performing a review of drawing quality'(layout, readability) without verifying the accuracy _of information on it; -(3) alteration of design documents by GE staf f who did not appear on the locument; (4) documents signed indicating they'were reviewed when they were not; (5) incomplete testing of components, such as the Reactor Mode Switch; (6) labeling errors (a part would have two names); (7) duplicate labeling errars similar to (item 6) above but shere two dif ferent parts have the same name; and (8) shipping this equipment to the Perry nuclear plants with known defects.
Energy Probe and WRA cite other examples of system probler.s that have also heavily impacted on the Perry nuclear plants. As the~ GAP letter to the Commissioner noted, some of these system problems ares (1) appropriate training not being implemented for new employees; (2) a routine program environment that discouraged individual initiatives to verify legal compliance, and encouraged a "let someone else che:k that aspect" attitude; (3) inadequately documented procedures combined with incomplete or no training (ICER codes); (4) a computer tracking system which erased prior information when new informa tion entered, destroying the chain af records (EIS); (5) use of unverified documents to verify a docu-ment (this practice was routinely encouraged by r.anagement); (6) generic structural weaknesses tainting the entire proJrsm, suan as a QA manager reporting to production; (7) tne practice of d~
ferring verification on safety-related equipment.
GAP's October 24, 1986 letter ta M r.
Harold Denton, Directar Nuclear Reactor Regulatary Commission, shows :learly that the NRC has not handled this matter appropriately. The ftet that they would grant Perry a full power license without discussing these GE defects, much less correcting them, shows the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the NRC has handled the Perry licensing.
7
.p w
.1 L
. IV.
LIST'OF REFERENCES
~ 1.
" Interaction Between Piping & Pipe Clamps",' David Terao, NRC. Board Notifications:
- a. ) No. 8 2-10 5, Nov embe r -2 4, 19 8 2 '
~b.)
No. 82-105a, September 29, 1983 2.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section-III; Nuclear Power -Plants:
a.) Subsection NB (Class 1 components) b.) Subsection NF (Component Supports) 3.
Western Piping & Engineering Co.,
Perry Plant Pipe Clamp
~
Certifications, by Henery J.
Tha lle r, Pennsylvania Engineer No.
16906-E- (Seal).
4.
California Board of Registration for Professional Engi-neers and Land Surveyors, ruling concerning Henery J.
Thailer:
see letter _from G.
Harrison Hilt, P.E.
executive officer.
5.
ASME Code Case; Pipe Clamp Materials; submitted October 29, 1986.
6.
" Nuclear Power Plant Piping Legal Requirements", notes by William Van Meter, August 13, 1982.
7.-
Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, Suit No. 796825, William Van Meter'vs.
Western Piping.
V.
CONCLUSION
'For all the reasons stated above, WRA an.1 Energy Probe seek an.i~.amediate closure of the Perry plants and/or an independent investigation of QA/QC problems outlined in this letter. Further, we seek a complete halt to bad faith actions by the NRC and public reversal of its denial of WRA's 2.206 petition which was based on' fraudulent reports of the NRC and CEI.
The continued bad faith by the Centerior Energy Corporation (C EC), CEI, Toledo Edison and the NRC has far-reaching negative impacts on U.S.
foreign ret.ations that outstrip the NRC's au-thority. The handling by NRC, the state of Ohio and the utilities concerning the Davis-Besse Nuclear plant in Northwest Ohio, the Zimmer Nuclear plant in Southern Ohio, plus the additional problem created by the Department of Energy's allowing of high levels of radiation to escape from Southern Ohio's Fernald nuclear site topped by the listed problems at Perry nuclear plant make it extremely dif ficult for Senator John Glenn and CERTIFICATE OF SERIICE o
9 hereby. certify that copies of this 2.206 petition regarding the Perry nuclear plant have been served by Federal Express or ist class mail, postage 7.
prepaid, or hand delivered on.this the 9th day of January,1987,' to the 1,.
following:
1
- thited States Nuclear Regulatory Ccrmission
. Washington. D.C. 20555 Goverranent Accountability Project
~
f 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington D.C., 20036 Mr. W.P. Molson~
Consulat General Du Canada Canadian Consulate General Suite 1008 - 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1983 thited States of America International Atcznic. Energy Agency (IAEA)
Director General Vienna International Center Wagramerstrasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria 1he Rt. Hon. Joe Clark Minister of External Affairs House of Ccsmens Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Public Citizen Mr. Eric Glitzenstein 2000 P. St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 United States of America s
thion of Concerned Scientists 1616 P. St. N.W.
7, f
.Saite 310
[l' A [
T'
,/
Washington, D.C. 20036 Lhited States of America.
David Poch Counsel to Ener3y Probe e/o Energy Probe 100 College Street Toronto, Canada MSG ILS 9
-_.i..
_,.._m._
_____m_
c..
=... -
other U.S.
representatives to have any credibility on the international scene when trying to convince other countries around the world to act responsibly when it ccmes to nuclear pow-er.
Three cases stand cut as examples of international law that side with WRA's and Energy Probe's call for the permanent closure t
of the Perry nuclear plants.
One is the Trail Smelter arbitra-tion case (see 3 U N.
Rep. Intl.
Arb. Awards 1905 (1949); 35 Am. J.
Intl.
L. 684 (1941).
Another is the Lacmous 12 U.N.R.I.
A.A. 281 (1957) 53 Am. J. Int'l 156 (1959).
These cases show l
that international law has changed to assign hability to coun-tries' actions causing environmental pollution within other coun-tries.
The International Court of Justice case on June 22, 1973,re-garding the Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v. France) Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection has many similarities to the current situation which faces Canada and the International ships that travel the great Lakes.
In closing, Energy Pro 3e and WRA would like to state that governments have long reccgnized the need to protect the world wide environment.
Principle 21 of the Declaration of the United I
Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972) said in part that nations have the " responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas outside the limits of national jurisdiction."
This petition shows that this responsi-bility has not been fulfilled.
We look forward to you' inmediate response.
Sincerely, n
- ( billi(r.
David Pcen Counsel to Energy Probe
$ c n t-eL & ). L-S < Alt vnvnez.
Donald L.
Sch l em.m e r Western Reserve Alliance 9