ML20065H669

Response to M Sinclair 820920 Revised Contentions,Set Ii. Objects to Contentions 34(a),37 & 43 & Portions of Contentions 6 & 57.Util Nonconformance Rept & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065H669
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/30/1982
From:	Steptoe P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8210050215
Download: ML20065H669 (13)

Text

v- -

• - / 0/82

00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 OCT -4 Ai0 d2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ f0Cl EI G! SE ib ERANCH-In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMEPS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-CM

) 50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 ) 50-330-OL and 2) ) -

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR SINCLAIR'S REVISED CONTENTIONS (SET II)

On September 20, 1982 Intervenor Mrs. Sinclair filed a second set of revised contentions. These contentions

-(except for Contention 6) had originally been conditionally accepted by the Licensing Board in its Special Prehearing Conference Order dated February 23, 1979, subject to the obligation to restate them with more specificity following discovery. Contention 6, which made general' assertions about the inadegnacy of Applicant's quality assurance program was rejected, but the Board allowed Intervenor to carry out discovery related to the issue and stated that it would

" entertain a suitably specific contention on the matter upon the' conclusion of discovery". Id. at 4. For the reasons-stated below, Applicant objects to portions of Contention 6, Contention 34(a), Contentions 37 and 43 and a portion-of-Contention 57.

Contention 6 Applicant objects to'the last clause in'the.first' 8210050215 820930 #

e4

'gDRADOCK05000 D

.x .

1 paragraph of Contention 6, which states that "an unknown number of-serious construction violations now remain in the facility -in areas where- they can neither be examined nor corrected." There is no basis anywhere in the contention for this assertion; i t is sheer speculation and conclusory

', argument. Moreover, admitting this part of the contention 4

would place an impossible evidentiary burden on Applicant, since it. requires proving a negative, r

Applicant also objects to the last two lines on page 1 of Mrs. Sinclair's pleading, which go beyond alleging that deception "has repeatedly been a part of the pattern of the Applicant's actions throughout the construction of Midland." This accusation, in addition to being scurrilous, does not meet the Commission's requirements of specificity and basis. Applicant has no objection to litigating whether the specific incident described in Dr. Landsman's August 24, 1982 memorandum constitutes a violation of this Board's April 30, 1982 Order and a deception.

Applicant objects to subpart b of proposed contention

~

6 in that it completely ignores the Applicant's resolution of -

the ITT' General altered radiograph problem. As. indicated in the affidavit of Chip' Wood enclosed with: Consumers-Power's-July 26, 1982~ Response to Mrs. Sinclair's July 12, 1982 document request, Consumers Power has reviewed all?ITT radiography and, asea result, questioned the film. associated with7four welds; all four of these welds were: re-radiographed and found e

to be' acceptable. In light of this information, there is in-sufficient basis for the assertions in the contention that "As a result of the' alterations, the quality of the welds is unknown. It ia doubtful that all of the - affected welds can be identified and corrected since some may no longer.be accessible for inspection." If Mrs. Sinclair wishes to litigate the adequacy of Applicant's resolution of the problem, she, of course, is free to do so, but she must provide some basis providing reason-

~

able notice to Applicant why its resolution is inadequate. She is not free, in proposing her contention, simply to ignore' Applicant's ,

resolution. Applicant also objects to the last sentence in sub-part b which argues, without providing any basis, that there are

" serious questions about the existence of deficiencies in all l vendor-supplied items." (emphasis added) i Applicant objects to subpart d.4 of Contention 6. The '

August 24, 1932 NCR referred to_(attached) shows quite clearly

[ that the radiograph mottlings were caused by x-ray diffraction

. and are non-relevant. Again, Mrs. Sinclair has. simply ignorep  ! "

Applicant's resolution rather than providing any. basis indicating I

why such resolution is unsatisfactory.

t Contention 34 Applicant objects to Contention 34 (a) which repeats word for word Mrs. Sinclair's. original 1978 contention.

l Despite answers to her interrogatories by both Applicant and the NRC Staff (July 12, 1982, Interrogatory 13, Contention 34; NRC remainder of response to Sinclair interrogatories pages 3-5),

c A: ,

I Mrs.'Sinclair-has not been able to offer any reason why there has been " inadequate examination" of the use of +

snubb'ers as' component supports'at Midland, or why there has _

been " inadequate consideration" of actual and potential >

snubber salfunctions. Such broad conclusory statements fail to meet the NRC's requirements of specificity and bans. We also note that the NRC does not characterize snubber operauility assurance as a Unresolved Safety Issue. See NUREG 0510 at

p. 19:

The types of snubber problems that have been experienced do not represent a " major reduction in the degree of protection of the public health and safety" because the faults experienced only represent degraded conditions rather than conditions that prevented operation of the affected snubbers. In addition, as a result of the faulty snubber experience, augmented inservice surveillance-and operability tests were required at operating facilities.

These current requirements provide assurance that faulty snubbers will be detected should they occur and corrective actions (i.e., repair or replace-ment) will be implemented. Implementation of these requirements has-markedly increased the availability of snubbers. Based on the above considerations, this task does not involve an

" Unresolved Safety Issue."

Applicant objects to subpart (b) because it is outside of the scope of original Contention 34. Mrs. Sinclair's original contention 34 only addressed the issue of snubbers.-

Inspection Reports 50-329/82-07 and 50-330/82-071do not concern snubbers at all.

d i

. = .

= .- o,.

Contention 37 .

i

. Applicant objects to this contention on the grounds that it is not related to the original contention accepted by the Licensing Board in 1979, and therefore the contention is not . timely. Intervenor Sinclair has replaced a contention which deal with piping design with a contention which  ;

relates to ECCS performance. The two issues do not even

-involve the same engineering disciplines.

Attached to this response are the original Sinclair contention conditionally accepted by the Licensing Board in-1979, the relevant portions of NUREG 0410 and the NRC Staff's Black Fox testimony. As can be seen most clearly from the.

. Staff's Task Action Plan for Task A-18, the issue raised by Intervenor in 1978 related to the proper mechanical design of piping and tdie need to protect equipment in the vicinity of high energy pipes from pipe whip and steam impingement.

In contrast, the new contention refers to a discussion of B&W analyses of ECCS performance during small break 4

LOCA's. See SSER Rev. 1, pp 6-1 to 6-2. This has nothing to do with the mechanical design of pipes or with protection of' equipment against pipe break effects. Indeed, - the need ,

.for such ECCS' analyses is derived from NUREG 0737 -(TMI Lessons ,

Learned) rather than from Task A-18 in NUREG 0410.

Considered as a new contention, Contention 37'is" not timely. Contentions based on new information in the.

F w , "i W  ?

SSER were to have been submitted within 14 days of service of the SSER, under the Board's Memorandum and Order dated May 7, 1982. The SSER was served on July 13, 1962.

Intervenor Sinclair has not attempted to justify this late-filed contention in accordance with the four factors listed in 10 CFR S2.714. Therefore the contention should be dismissed.

Contention 43 This contention should be dismissed for lack of specificity and basis, and lack of nexus to this proceeding.

The contention contains no allegations specific to Midland or Consumers Power Company. The contention does not name any specific individuals whose civil liberties may be violated, or state specifically how such violations may occur. It is absurd, for example, for this Licensing Board to inquire in this proceeding whether Georgia Power engaged in unlawful spying in Atlanta, or whether the operation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor will result in infrigement of civil liberties.

This contention migh't also be intrepreted to be an inpermissible challenge to the Commission regulations, specifically 10 CFR Part 73, if Mrs. Sinclair's point is that the mere existence of security programs at nuclecr power plants in compliance with Part 73 violates the Constitution.

But even if the contention is not interpreted as a challenge to the regulations, it is not reasonable to litigate such E

general issues in individual licensing proceedings. As the Appeal Board observed in Duke Power Company (William B. I McGuire Nuclear Station, Units l 'and 2) , ALAB 128, GAEC 399, 405 (1973), -

If facts pertaining to the licensing  ;

of a particular power plant are at issue, an -

adjudicatory proceeding is the right forum. But if

~

someone vants to advance generalizations regarding .

his particular views of what applicable policies ,

ought to be, a role other than a party to a trial- '

type hearing should be chosen.

Finally, we note that the constitutional issue Mrs. Sinclair seeks to raise is different than the issue referred to in contention 43 as submitted by Mrs. Sinclair on October 31, 1978 and conditionally accepted in 1979.

Mrs. Sinclair's original contention related to plant design features for protection against sabotage, not civil rights.

Accordingly this is a new, untimely contention which Intervenor  !

has failed to justify under 10 CFR S2.714. This provides additional ground for dismissal.

Contention 57 Applicant has _ no objection to the introductory sentence.

Applicant objects only to the words " accident or" -

i in the last line of'the first paragraph of this contention'.

The contention deals only with fire protection and provides  !

no basis for_ litigating the performance of electrical cable in other unidentified accident scenarios, such as LOCAs or earth- <

quakes.

t

.y

+ ...

.. . Applicant objects - to that portion of the second -

paragraph which alleges that use of 6-stranded 16 guage wire "could result in a weaker signal than necessary through the wires, and . . . could disrupt service" . This has nothing to do with. fire protection, which was the subject of the contention conditionally admitted in 1979.

Applicant also objects to the second paragraph insofar as it may be interpreted as raising issues which i

may be in the affidavit (which is currently being withheld from Applicant by the NRC), other than the improper use of 6-stranded wire. So interpreted, the contention would lack specificity and basis with respect to any such other issues. In addition, acceptance of a contention based on i

information withheld from Applicant would violate Applicant's l

l right to due prccess of law.

Applicant does not object to that portion of the second paragraph which alleges that improper use of 6-stranded wire could pose a fire hazard.

l

( Respectfully submitted, ktb O, h bhe(Jkot, h4 Ati(O Philip P. Steptoe ~4 One of the Attorneys-for Consumers Power Company

.Isham,' Lincoln &.Beale

< 3 First National Plaza 60602

' Chicago, Illinois (312) 558 7500

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THS ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter:of ) .

) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM "

) 50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 ) 50-330-OL and 2) ) ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-I, Philip P. Steptoe, one of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company, hereby certify that a copy of

" Applicant's Response to Intervenor Sinclair's Revised Contentions (Set-II)" was served upon~all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first' class, this 30th day of September, 1982.

9 kh k e.,Q h hkr.O'fbl, bu Ab Philip P. Steptoe A -

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 30th day of September, 1992. *

,y

/

hLud i L%Am Notary Public ,

Mg Commmma LAgsres Jar.uary 1.4, IVoa D

• 9 e

SERVICE LIST Frank J..Kelley, Esq. Steve Gadler, Esq.

Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan '

St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div. Appeal Panel 720 Law Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Lansing, Michigan 48913 Washington, D.-C. 20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Mr. C. R. Stephens Cherry & Flynn Chicf, Dccketing & Services

' Suite 3700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Three First National Pla=a Office cf the Secretary Chicago, Illinois 60602 Washington, D. C. 20555 I Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Ms. Mary Sinclair 4625 S. Saginaw Road 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 48640-Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. William D. Paton, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Counsel for the NRC Staff Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D..C.- 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 -

Atomic Safety & Licensing-Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Board Panel l

6152 N. Verde Trail U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Comm.

Apt. B-125 Washington, D. C. 20555 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road I Mr. D. F. Judd Route'3 l Babcock & Wilcox Freeland, Michigan 48623

! P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Dr. Jerry Harbour l Atomic Safety & Licensing l James E. '3 runner, Esq. Board Panel Consumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

212' West flichigan Avenue Washington,.D. C. 20555 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Lee L. Bishop, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss 1725 "I" Street N.W. #506 Washington, D. C. 20006 1

l l

I l

l i

I k_ . . _ . - .J

l 4 .- .oritv: 6 Trend -3 Start Uo Svstem: 1/BNA , BNA AI: S-76%

PROJECTS. .GINEERING AND CoNSTRJCTION -

M OUAUTY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT pesar \ ,

Campest I ' XK

.,, tam 1 cr 3 USN

6. in:xc sus: 7. -- -a rur m: 4. macurancio rut was. t.

gn,p,nal 'O31 Borated Water Midland 1 & 2 IT-60 and 2T-60 g gg a. ass gIM2%5 /

9. sum.maani u. em. case = m me: Lt. usa /we.er x 3. um cr rzv 4/23/81 j N/A Graver Energy Systems N/A 5 c 6:.2 -~ & 16. 3. 6;FFIC ~"

t Or s-

12. . u :s -,a caso= s vus u ama:w:r c: ssma wuz azrs: 5. msaurns .

h ,{ '

ASME,Section V Article T.233.2, states: All radiographs shall QQ be free frcm mechanical, chemical, or other blemishes to the

]NFO COPY: MJuister extent that they cannot mask or be confused with the image of any REWhitaker REMcCue disconcinuttles in the area of interest. ALAB (2)

RDJohnson A) Contrary to the above, the radiographs subattted by . .

MPeck JI, hoed  !

Graver Energy Systems displayed mottlings in the URBird JARutgers i

vertical weld seams of the borated water storage tanks. '

JWCook DATaggart These radiographs include but are not limited to the

-TGGeekeG-)-XWendMW following: IT-60 Ring #1 vert #1, Radiographs Nos., MADietrich 6@iVGA6-1-2 (R-2), 2-3 (R-2), 3-4, 4-5 (R-1), 5-6, 6-7, 7-8, and -JFFidie---MPW 8-9. (continuedson page 3). ggg,,g,y _g,,,4,V

u. a . rea un ca ',

. . J'wMHywhiteRAWells A. Review Radiographs on the vertical weld seams on tanks IT-60 and

' BWMarguglio TKsubrana-2T-60 to identify all areas that contain this condition.

(continued on page 3) JMisendin- ESmith >

DBMiller JAMooney l mux /rm.m: ss. :s=== -- 1 I== R JEErunner MLCurland tw m u .us or_=s ma, -e, . mi c, su as un.==

rn i I ml xI i

15. :s 1.- ca a m usas m, , m ; 3 ; a so, zr:sa .wnr=arza m:a i ACK 1-o ce ts. xzs x um; a-t:sr :=ws m l X l so l l 17. m x mammazz rua so.55(e): ml l mlx l i 1:. :s x zueo r.2 m rur21. ml l=lvi 19. 2 ris,nas s:n.cr:rcar m "m>

N/A 2o. a m , asom.s w .o ance at. 2 m, aus cr mac arrmw. o wnmi arm:xa. N/A az. x causasa 37: ( as. var = aurtr smaunso azi as. sasavnca s s:aatusias JRDecker

[ g,12 19,81 j [ g,g p_ g /

25. Put ca .- , mst:r=a=m a c:ar:ze:m us p

See Disposition on Page 3.

• CPCo retained responsibility for part corrective action. l Identification and evaluation of views exhibiting mottling. .and evaluation of RE-RT, were incorporated into vendor RT film review effort, contracted by CPCo to NDTE/ HOB. j i

l l

as. usuairwa:1 su. w:x. mr.: n. no su. m:x. mr.: ea. e.~-,rz m. a. . azo.: a ,. m. a m. a. aza s A  !

SUA N/A N/A  ?*  !

3a. ru/ccm. su. u s. :xr. mr.: 3t. su. c, m =x., ,cze. 32 m ,. - n.:. mr. u. a w =. m . m 2 ,.o  : m ,.:

CCEIrns: 313. Ag'zz. D:37.3 l N/A N/A N/A  !  !

3.. 4--- or rurca .s:urzAz=s:

f I

Sett Disposition on Page 3  ;

i I l

35. SI3. cr caG. RE31. rea rART C/A 36 Sm. vn2T3G ruf C/A & EU TAG 37. xn C: EEL ST/CAs I 3 DG ::be:221:ss y CAss r & rROCESS CA CCMrIz3) l

• M

• k-h- l

NONCONFORMANCE REPORT QUAUTY ASSURANCE DEPA*;TMENT

&lT PMOJECT3. ENGINEEitMG ANO CONSTRUCTION =

f M .E. m w -o31 PROCISS CORRECTIVE. ACTION r.C. 2, 2

30. 4 Am.m.amensi CF 80GT CMEEL&):

N/A e

39. JCf.IAL 800T CAC5&t3). IF Dus-1 F5Cas AaQYE (:0 32 WJ23 E! CaG. JESPQRIN FCa m CA):

N/A 4

Iso. rma.n w CA 3347;333 F1g3(g 23 3 FA33: 6= CCM53tC=Cs Fanmuume'T N CN No

• L. 4 * ~ ' O FCI rmA.a.aa gas N/A M. a- CA *D EE 32EE ST CHG(3) -- 3 3:act 41 & a-lg er congggg:

N/A i

5 I

?

e i

43. A CD "X i- CA vraIrz:ATime i

N/A

• • 3I~*. 2 N. HIE 3 FOR c'- - CA SI2IFT33 CCMFI2nz g, agg;;3caec,gggg.,g g g g g, N/A g/A ,

Page 3 of 3 NCR NO: M-01-9-1-031 Fils No. 16.3.4 & 16.3.6

12. Continued from page one.

A) IT-60 Ring #1 Vert #2, Radiograph Nos. 1-2 (R-2), 2-3 (R-2), 3-4, 4-5 (R-1), 5-6 (R-2), 6-7, and 7-8 (R-2).

B) The above discrepancy was previously documented on QCFM-7612, deviation from subcontract documents dated 3-30-80.

C) This NCR is issueo to track the resolution of this problem.

13. Continued from page one.

3) Re-radiograph all the areas that contain this condition using and alternative source of radiation in order to produce acceptable radiographs.

25. Continued frem page 1.

1. CPCo contracted NDT Engineeling to review all Q-listed vendor ,

radiographs, including RT for BWST IT-60, 2T-60. From viewstg exhibiting X-ray diffraction (termed mottling on NCR), 10 worst cases were identified for further evaluation.

2. The 10 worst case views were re-radiographed utilizitig an.ASME code-acceptable procedure and IR-192 source. The linear disposed diffraction patterns were non-existent in the IR-192 radiographs, '

proving that the diffraction patterns in the remaining vender radiographs are non-rwlevant;

Conclusion:

The cause of the linear indications has been proven to be X-ray diffraction. The prodf radiographs and closed copy of this NCR will be incorporated into vendor film set for Tank 1T-60.

.