ML20005E189
| ML20005E189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1989 |
| From: | Mcburnett M HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E190 | List: |
| References | |
| ST-HL-AE-3329, NUDOCS 9001040041 | |
| Download: ML20005E189 (4) | |
Text
f 1
e e
The ht y
i P.O. Box 1700 11ouston, 'Rxas 77001 (713) 228 9211 Houston Lighting ac Power -- - --
- - - ~ ~ -
December 27, 1989 ST.HL AE 3329 i
File No.:
C25.042 l
10CFR$0 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
[
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 59 498, STN 50-499 Review of COA v. H1AF Litigation Record - Finni Report
Reference:
- 1. J. _11. Goldberg (HMP) letter to Document Control Desk dated April 14, 1989 (ST HL AE 2985)
- 2. J.11. Goldberg (llMP) letter to Document Control Desk dated December 20, 1988 (ST ilL.AE 2921)
- 3. J. H. Goldberg (llMP) letter to Document Control Desk dated April 14, 1989 (ST.HL AE 3053)
This report of Phase III of the City of Austin v. Ilouston Lighting &
Power (COA v. HIAP) Litigation Record Review Program documents the results and conclusions reached following a systematic review of the pretrial record not previously examined and the record of the trial in the litigation between the City of Austin and llouston Lighting & Power company (llMP) and its parent, llouston Industries Inc. (1111). The trial ended on July 5,1989, with a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, itL&P and 1111. The review of the portion of the pretrial record created prior to July 25, 1988 (Phase I) was previously documented in a report dated November 1988 and submitted by Reference 2.
The review of the portion of the pretrial record created between July 25, 1988 and January 16, 1989 (Phase II) was previously documented in a report dated March 1989 and submitted by Reference 3.
This Phase III program completes the litigation review.
The review disclosed no safety related deficiencies which had not already been identified by HMP.
Enclosed for your review are the following:
1)
S. Levy, Inc. " Final Report for the South Texas Project COA v. HL&P Litigation Record Review Program Phase III" dated November 1989 (Attachment 1),
2) the llL&P Report on the Review of COA vs llMP Records Scaled by Court Order, dated November 1989 (Attachment 2), and
- 3) the Statement of the Senior Advisory Panel, which was commissioned to monitor the Litigation Record Review Program to assure that the objectives of the review were achieved (Attachment 3).
A1/045.NL8 A Subsidiary of Houston Industries incorporated
(
9001040041 891227 PDR ADOCK 05000498
\\
P PDC j
llouuon Lighting & Power Compan)-
ST.HL AE 3329 File No.: G25.G42 Page 2 i
The Senior Advisory Panel concluded that the Program was successful in i
p generating complete and accurate results and that Program procedures were followed by S. Levy Inc. (SLI) and HMP. The Panel was satiafied that the Program would have detected any previously unidentified safety related deficiencies described in the COA v. IIMP ?"igation record completed on July 5, 1989 and that the results of the i
<g am are supported by documents organized in a retrievable and auditable.... ion. The Panel further concluded l
that the SLI " Final Report for the South Texas Project COA v. HMP Litigation Record Review Program Phase III" and HMP's separate report on its review preu nt a fair and comprehensive description of the Program's final phase and its results.
As pointed out in the reference letter, the object of the review was twofold:
(1) to examine the litigation record to determine whether it contained any evidence of previously unidentified deficiencies in the safety related systems, structures, or components of STP or the associated design or quality documents; and (2) to document the review process and its j
results in a retrievable form.
The review was conducted in two stages.
First, the litigation record was screened to determine which record documents (i.e., depositions, interrogatories and exhibits designated for trial) might contain information about technical aspects of the STP design or construction.
The second stage 7
of the review process consisted of a detailed line by line review by S. Levy, Inc. of all documents identified by the screening process.
S. Levy, Inc.
i recorded each assertion in these documents which described a deficiency in any of the STP systems, structures or components or related design or quality documents. A total of 460 assertions were identified. These assertions were then analyzed and evaluated to determine whether (1) they had been identified in previous reviews; (2) they were not safety related;-(3) had already been identified by 1he STP; or (4) were factually erroneous.
The 460
.scrtions identified by S. Levy, Inc. were dispositioned as follows: 285 were determined to have already been identified and dispositioned in either the HMP v. B&R Litigation Record Review Program or Phase 1 or Phase 11 of the COA v. HMP Litigation Record Review Program, 5 were determined not to be safety related, 168 were shown to have already been identified by the STP, and 2 were determined to be factually erroneous.
IIMP performed the screening and review of certain records which were sealed by the court and withheld from public disclosure.
HMP's report of that review is provided as Attachment 2.
There were no previously unidentified safety related deficiencies found in the HMP scope of review.
HL&P identified a total of 14 assertions.
W A1/045.NL8
H liouston 1.ighting & Power Company
[
ST+HL.AE.3329 File No.:
G25.042 Page 3 The 14 assertions identified by HlAP were dispositioned as follows:
10 i
were determined to have already been identified and dispositioned in either the Rf AP v. KR Litigation Record Review Program or Phase 1 or Phase II of the COA v. H1AP Litigation Record Review Program, and 4 were shown to have already been identified by the STP, i
This report of the Phase III portion of the COA v. H1AP litigation is the final report in this litigation review. HIAP has concluded the review effort and expects there'to be no further records for review in the case.
The complete files of the review effort are available for your review, If there are any questions regarding the review, please contact Mr. A. W. Harrison at (512) 972 7298 or myself at (512) 972 8530.
. A. McBurnett Manager j
Licensing MAM/AWH/n1 Attachments: (1)
S. Levy, Inc. " Final Report for the South Texas Project
[
Litigation COA v. HIAP Record Review Program Phase III" dated November, 1989 S. Levy (2) HIAP Report on Review of COA v. H1AP Records Sealed by Court i
Order dated November, 1989 (3) Statement of the Senior Advisory Panel for the South Texas Project Litigation Record Review Program i
A1/045.NL8
p 1
,w.
ST.HL-AE. 3329 Houston Lighting & Power Company File No.: G25.G42 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station p.g. 4 cc:
Regional Administrator, Region IV Rufus S. Scott Nuclear Regulatory Commission Associate General Counsel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston Lighting & Power Company Arlington, TX 76011 P. O. Box 61867 Houston, TX 77208 George Dick, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot.
INPO Washington, DC 20555 Records Center 1100 circle 75 Parkway J. I. Tapia Atlanta, CA 30339 3064 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie Commission 50 Be11 port Lane P. O. Box 910 Be11 port, NY 11713 Bay City, TX 77414 D. K. Lacker J. R. Newman, Esquire Bureau of Radiation Control Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Texas Department of Health 1615 L Street, N.V.
1100 West 49th Street Washington, DC 20036 Austin, TX 78704 D. E. Ward /R. P. Verret Central Power & Light Company P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 J. C. Lanier Director of Generation City of Austin Electric Utility 721 Barton Springs Road Austin, TX 78704 R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt i
City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, TX 78296 Revised 12/15/89 L4/NRC/
l