ML20116H584

Notifies of Mod to Evidence Presented in Response to Eddleman Contention 41 Re Pipe Hanger Welding.Verification of Pipe Hanger Design Compliance Will Be Performed by Craft Supervisors

ML20116H584
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/29/1985
From:	Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-792 OL, NUDOCS 8505020267
Download: ML20116H584 (5)

Text

1 s

1 SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNcRsM,p 6NcLuofNG PROFEsssONAL Compon.T,oNs 6800 M STREET. N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 R ANo.L .. E LL. P.C.

( ENNETH J M.UTM.N svLveA M. LoTmEC-F.Ms.Y D. POTys o c.

f- oi?8.Ps*Y'7'"h""e. 00tKETED P^E?ch^c""'*fL'c."~ eifiv"'I"c 5" Lles!*

!Ei.'#,' r';&".^,h"f

!nt"L"cht,?.;7,=,,,';, , c. s?c" Jai 3: "?!."d"!c"' RT!,7!#o's "!l'A"~o "ch'fd." "J,t"c.

f"nt's,%=3f,ragc, yc' S'Yl2 "r."#.'#d&%.",*, c. # ***%{$%''""

" __ 'i'#.E ^ 6"d2Eb- I h'!.'s* * '~"Msre i~

pgggo,ewaoo vg s.,Jg",;^g, a

"c"%"c;'R; q  ;"gu!3a cgth ga;g.ao ga ;,,,,,.

so.4~ ,s.sa a.c.

.E.It. gas. .. se ,= ~.

L ,,,,,,,,,,,,

-c-*n ~*oor~ se vwa.- n~*~

fEsc,i *: 2."c"M"s'shM, .c., c. 3:E:'"IM^"" "' '85 M'M" #1 :03 "28O 'i'JN""- " = #""a#^="

P  ;E"Isd/cOE?!=' jew ^o*iE&s'" ^e"'T."'CE v 'e n",7.9." "'

"^";'"hca"%

tt 8 g' "'""

O =Las u.womr.aoc cw.n'un. , .c' oLevo~

'"" "lc8.,'."?t..!!,s,,c* c., sa.

v, es 2883 (swawLaw wsa) c .w o o ."lL.%.'O. cwa.s".uc ..cw

o. w sr=-.~

!.;c"o r

h Ohic*'.? on."s,. f.

!"dC# c. ,T( *'/J.

35^Jl'.t 2^hh *A 0FFR*SSF55EtMETAR # CEII"diA"LU"' "'

~

b"/.".";s^,'e'I.?,h1M 'c. ""oM" t,"^o"J45ow ~

42*0 E ,"We"! ."'"!E ^~ 98'30"?"~.1*48"E"*a "fr'"I~^ r* c a~"'""'"

1. "E"?** *nIF9f * * *.

at,'l " 4?EE.*i"c' '80'".'Jo':.'fJh'Ir" - ~ DOCK

(,TmG%h',EFVicf'

' ),jtg "'"'

2 c't'.'i.*o'.'a:

1"!1?$2"*ci5/pE'. sE8?v"'"*". r*~^e* *o" 0'Y.'on?~'t"wL"v's 126*.'*s?W!"or.

t,;";n==rac ! s=n.=s""

• u?B"c"c P"1L..to"*r, s.... " " ",,"'"," ". ' ' ea&rls,w

" Al*'s"'"'

v "o*,*:."A

= ware.

95'" f,.tntc"' so ,, r. o Lv EI**" "I"'s SEA."

Sin 9 v'? Ef,"J '" " 9^c,'?.t cJ#^" " ,,c,..o s..c.rry  !!L'ai" ".l:!:.'s"#,.

n "?!!.42*lant'i^ :,*..o. .

1;' ",':!! U,'"rM"rf 2 c. s?%'5.^esJd"!*** ~o.carc.co~~ 2l"^.;?'s"? J uc'"" Y?oiVll"r E "J%?an .

3",'1."s"R",n,?L " 3."."e' ' 82'%t "?". 5^*~1" couasu btY."'"J'J".!a"*" J .'"

s.?.*a a, 'i.m.

s',53".*a

• . estTgg y.gg. man WRITER s oanECT on.L hu,s.Em April 29, 1985 (202) 822-1090 James L. Kelley, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

Docket No. 5 0-40 00 L-Administrative Judges Kelley, Bright and Carpenter:

Applicants hereby notify the Board of a modification to the evidence presented in response to Eddleman Contention 41 (Pipe Hanger Welding). Hearings on Eddleman 41 have been held, and proposed findings of fact submitted by Applicants, Mr. Eddleman, and the NRC Staff. The change, described below, to the non-welding aspects of the Harris Plant pipe hanger 8505020267 850429 PDR ADOCK 05000400  %

o PDR m

V SHAW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMsP INCLUDfNG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATsONS James L. Kelley, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter April 29, 1985 Page 2 installation / inspection program, is not material to Applicants' case and should not affect the Board's decision on the conten-tion.

Eddleman 41, as limited by the Board, challenged the ade-quacy of pipe hanger welding inspections at the Harris Plant.

Welding inspections of pipe hangers at the Harris site are per-formed by the QC (Quality Control) organization. Pipe hangers are also subjected to inspections of non-welding attributes for design compliance, such as location, geometry and material, which are performed by the CP&L CI (Construction Inspection) organization. Nevill et al., ff. Tr. 6663, at 8, 13-14. Con-sideration of these CI inspections was deemed outside the scope of Contention 41, which focused on hanger welding. See, e.g.,

Tr. 7263-68.

, In their testimony, Applicants described an enhanced hang-er installation / inspection program which was put into place in December, 1983, to provide more positive control of construc-tion, inspection and documentation activities. Applicants' witnesses identified four key elements of the enhanced program, one of which was as follows:

l (3) A field hanger engineering sup-port unit has been developed whose purpose is to support the craft during hanger in-stallation. These Hanger Engineering per-

! sonnel remain in the field trcoughout the

! hanger's construction and identifv and re-solve installation problems. These efforts produce additional confidence that the de-l sign organization's intent is being met during construction. Field Hanger Engi-neering personnel also examine the hanger <

l for design compliance and have Welding En-gineering personnel examine hanger welds (both shop and field) prior to submitting the hanger package to CI and QC for final l

inspection. Hanger Field Mods are gener-l ated by Hanger Engineering personnel to re-solve problems encountered. These examina-tions by the Banger and Welding Engineering personnel will generate higher quality lev-els in the work being presented for final inspecticn and thereby render this process more effective.

Y SHAW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOtNG PRQFESS@NAL CORPORAT@NS James L. Kelley, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter April 29, 1985 Page 3 Nevill, et al., ff. Tr. 6663, at 24-25. See also id. at 11.

CP&L's experience with the enhanced program over the past 16 months has led to the conclusion that it is no longer neces-sary or warranted to have Hanger Engineering personnel examine the hanger for design compliance prior to submission of the hanger package to CI for final inspection. Consequently, CP&L has eliminated this specific activity from the hanger program.

This verification step now will be performed by craft supervi-sors. (There is no change in the role of Welding Engineering personnel as described in the testimony. In particular, Welding Engineering personnel continue to review pipe hanger welds prior to the QC welding inspection.) Note that Hanger Engineering personnel, augmented now by Harris Plant Engineer-ing Section personnel, will continue to be involved with the installation process in the field, generating pipe hanger field modifications and assisting the craft with problem solving, as described in the testimony.

This limited modification to the hanger program is not ma- 4 terial and should not affect the Board's decision on Eddleman Contention 41. First, as noted above, the focus of the conten-

tion is on welding inspections by QC. In contrast, this revi-l sion applies only to the CI scope of inspection, which is l non-welding attributes. Second, while the witnesses noted that the provision of engineering support to the craft was one facet in the improvement of the pipe hanger program, the parties have not relied on the design compliance verification by Hanger En-gineering personnel as a major factor affecting program adequa-cy. See Tr. 7038 (Hate), 7358-59 (Blake). Applicants and Mr.

Eddleman did not refer to this Hanger Engineering 'rerification in proposed findings of fact. While the Staff repeated the testimony quoted above in its proposed findings which describe the enhanced program, the Staff did not refer to this verifica-l tion step in its proposed finding which summarizes the bases l for Staff confidence in the program. "NRC Staff Proposed Find-l ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Joint Intervenors' Con-l tentions I, IV and VII(4) and Eddleman Contentions 9, 41 and 116," January 22, 1985, at'51 516(3) and 521.

j Respectfully submitted, h M Thomas A. Baxter Counsel for Applicants cc: Service List attached l

a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of  ;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright , M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12607 Wachington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic $=faty and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 i Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman  !

Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street j Office of Executive Legal Director Durham, North Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Richard E. Jones, Esquire Office of the Secretary Vice President and Senior Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & Light Company Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Dr. Linda W. Little CHANGE Governor's Waste Management Board P.O. Box 2151 513 Albemarle Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Cardlina 27611 I

r a

Y Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II, 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff'- NCUC P. O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 i

i l

l l

l i

w