ML20010J320
| ML20010J320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109300311 | |
| Download: ML20010J320 (20) | |
Text
.
09/28/81 pit i% b'q.
(T[f UNITED 5TATES OF AMERICA c
NOjgl f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10ll SEPg 9 gggy y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD
(
v4 s
/
In the Matter of
)
4 G2 HOUSTON LIGHTIf4G Aku POWER COMPANY, Docket tios. 50-498
_ET _AL.
50-499
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
NRC STAFF RESP 0llSE IN OPPOSITION TO CEU'S MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS I.
INTRODUCTION Un September 10, 1981, Intervenor, Citizens For Equitable Utilities (hereinafter referred to as CEU) served a "... MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS BASED ON NEW INFORMATION AND TO ESTABLISH A DISCOVERY Af4D HEARING SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW C0flTENTIONS."
In its motion, CEU asserts that based upon information contained.in recent newspaper reportsM and its subsequent initial investigation of the matter, it is informed Houston Lighting and Power (nereinafter referred to as HL&P) and its principal contractor, Brown & Root, received several thousand structural steel beams from the American Bridge Division of the United States Steel Corporation containing welds which do not conform to the requirements of the American Welding Society. The motion further alleges that a substantial y
CEU attached to its pleading three articles by Candice Hughes of the Austin American-Statesman dated August 27, 29 and September 1,1981, respectively.
Y 9S O '7 S' ! l DESIGNA ORIGINAI; e
ooh!810923T
~
05000493l Certified By C
PDR'
i 2-i aucunt of the steel ultimately deemed defective was initially considered acceptable by Brown & Root personnel involved in the vendor surveillance program both at the American Bridge Facility and the South Texas Project.
CEV contends that subsequently a percentage of this steel has been in-stalled in the plant before any deficiencies were discovered.
CEV next maintains Brown & Root has experienced similar breakdowns in its vendor surveillance program at the Comanche Peak facility and thus reasons that this latest incident confirms CEU's position that the heart of the problem at the South Texas Project is Brown & Root.U Finally, CEU maintains HL&P failed to fulfill its reporting obligations under 10 C.F.R. s 50.55(e) by not submitting a written report on this matter to the HRC.
Based upon CEU's perception of the manner in which HL&P reported and attempted to remedy the defects found in the structural steel supplied by American Bridge, it submitted the following eight (8) new contentions for litigation during the current expedited phase of this operr. ting license proceeding:
1.
HL&P and B&R have consistently failed to per-form adequate inspections or to control the quality of materials for the South Texas Project at the site of the supplier, as re-quired by Section VII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
2]
In this regard, the Staff notes the role of Brown & Root at the South Texas Project has dramatically changed since CEV filed its motion and would request the Board to have CEU clarify its position relative to its proposed contentions in light of the changes at the Project.
See, letter from Jack R. Newman to the Board, dated September 24, 1981, advising all parties that Bechtel Power Corporation will replace Brown & Root as architect-engineer and construction manager.
2.
HL&P and B&R have consistently failed to per-fom adequate inspections or to control the quality of uaterial prior to its acceptance at the site for use in the South Texas Project, ds required by Sections X and VII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
3.
HL&P and B&R have consistently failed to pre-vent the use of defective materials in the South Texas Project, as required by Sections X, VII and I of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
4.
HL&P has failed to carry out adequate over-sight of the quality assurance activities of B&R with respect to vendor surveillance or of the quality assurance activities of its vendors, including American Bridge, in violation of Sections II and VII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
5.
HL&P has failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 10 C.F.P.. 50.55(e)(1)(1) and (iii), and (e)(3) with respect to the defects found in the steel supplied by American Bridge.
6.
When confronted with extensive defects in the steel supplied by American Bridge, HL&P and B&R changed the quality control inspection procedures to eliminate inspection of some areas, with the result that the procedures permit the acceptance of steel containing serious defects and the overlooking of sub-standard welds, in violation of Sections I, VII, and X of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
7.
The use of the substandard and defective steel from American Bridge that has been ins +-lied in the South Texas Project constitutes c.
? eat to the public health and safety that can be cured only by a complete reinspection and correction of all of the steal supplie d by that company.
The Act prohibits the issuance of an operating license for this facility until the reinspection and correction has been completed.
8.
The failure of vendor surveillance with respect to the American Bridge steel raises serious questions concerning the validity and adequacy of HL&P's vendor surveillance program in all other areas. Without a complete investigation
of all of those areas, there is no assurance that the materials comply with established standards or that the public health and safety will be protected.
Un September 17, 1981, during the evidentiary hearings in this matter, the Board directed all parties to file written responses to CEU's motion by September 28, 1981 (Tr. 8565).
In addition, the Board posed eleven (11) questions to the parties which it felt would aid in its ruling on the instant motion (Tr. 9003-10).E The Staff opposes the admission of the eight (8) new contentions offered by CEU for the following two reasons which will be more fully explained in Section 11 of this brief:0 A.
All new contentions proposed by CEO are un-timely and a balancing of the five (5) factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) dictate against their admission.
B.
All of CEU's proposed contentions are overly broad and vague and consequently fail to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b).
y The Staff has attached its responses to the eleven (11) Board ques-tions as Appendix A to this brief.
y The Staff's criticism of CEU's proposed contentions extends to all but Contention five (5), which asserts HL&P failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 9 50.55(e) relative to defects found in the structural steel supplied by American Bridge. The Staff feels this question can be readily resolved by reference to the reports supplied on this matter by HL&P, attached to this brief as Appendix B.
II. DISCUSSION A.
ALL NEW CONTENTIONS PROPOSED BY CEU ARE UNTIMELY AND A BALANCING OF THE FIVE (5) FACTORS SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(o)(1)(i-v) DICTATE AGAINST THEIR ADMISSION.
When a contention is filed late in a proceeding, its admissibility must be judged by a balancing of the five (5) factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) of the Commission's regulations.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-5, 13 HRC 361, 364 (1981); 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b). The five (5) factors set forth in this section which should be considered as a pre-condition to admitting any late contention are:
1.
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
2.
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
3.
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reason-ably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
4.
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be repre-sented by existing parties.
5.
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issue or delay the proceeding.
To facilitate a Board in weighing these five (5) factors, it is incumbent upon the proponent of a late contention, in this case CEU, to address these factors in its motion for new contentions and affirmatively demonstrate that, on balance, its contentions should be admitted as matters in controversy.
See, Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980); cjf., Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
(West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273, 275 (1975); Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, 11 NRC 239, 241-42 (1980); Virginia Electric and Power
Company _ (North Anna Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-289, 2 NRC 395, 398 (1975); Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 HRC 383, 388-89 (1976). The burden is on the propo-nent of a new contention to justify any tardiness. Diablo Canyon, 13 HRC at 464; Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612, 615 (1977).
At the onset it should be stressed, contrary to the above require-ment, that CEU in its pleading has not addressed the aforementioned factors of s 2.714. Rather, CEV rests its action on the mistaken belief the defects in the structural steel supplied by American Bridge constitute new information developed since August, 1981, and goes on to make only general and vague allegations as to the seriousness and extent of these defective welds. Apart from these general charges, CEU's argunent i1 support of the admissibility of these contentions consists solely of a reference to three (3) newspaper articles and an I&E Report covering the Comanche Peak facility.N CEV has therefore not sustained its burcen of evaluating its proposed new contentions against each nf the five (5) factors in 10 CFR 9 2.714. she Staff, however, will next address each applic61e factor seriatim below.N y
Staff counsel has been informed the vendor surveillance program at Comanche Peak is operated by a Brown and Root subcontractor and is programmatically dissimilar to the South Texas vendor surveillance program.
y The Staff notes that factor four (4), asking whether petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties, is uniquely appli-cable to a late mot,S to intervene, and accordingly, will not be addressed in the c.at!xt of a motion to file new contentions.
-7
- i. Good Cause For Late Filing Under the Commission's rules of practice, an untimely intervention petition, or, as here, a motion for the admission of new contentions, may not be granted in the absence of a determination by the 1.icensing Board that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for failure to file on time.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a) and (b); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-5m 13 IIRC 361, 364 (1981); Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-431, 6 HRC 460, 46? (1977).
l Further, it is settled law that the good cause determination must be made by the Board af ter consideration of both (1) the substantiality of the l
justification offered for the late filing and (2) a consideration of the other four (4) factors specifically enumerated in 6 2.714(a). 6 NRC at 462; see e.g. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 HRC 273 (1975); Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 388-89 (1976);
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2),
ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612, 615 (1977).
In addition, when a party filing late contentions fails to demonstrate the existence of good cause for its late filing, it should be incumbent upon that party, as it is upon a late petitioner for leave to intervene, to make a particularly strong showing with respect to the remaining four (4) factors. See, Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 2), ALAB-431, 6 HRC 460, 462 (1977).U 7f In this regard, the Stuff notes CEU's position that tne merits of a contention cannot be considered in determining whether to admit that contention (Tr. 9011). However, it is clear the Board must look to each croposed contention to evaluate it in the context of the five (5) factors of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and assure itself that there is a specific bases for each contention.
~
_a.
Whether good cause exists for the late filing of new contentions by CEU depends in large part upon the validity of its claim of "new infor-mation." Ine eight (d) new contentions proposed by CEU fall into one of two categories relative to when CEV may have acquired the requisite infor-mation to draft such proposed contention. The first four (4) proposed contentions address general failings by HL&P, specifically:
(1) consistent failure to perform adequate inspections at the site of the supplier; (2) consistent failure to perform adequate inspections prior to acceptance of material at the site; (3) consistent failure to prevent the use of defective materials at the site; and (4) HL&P's failure to oversee Brown
& Root's vendor surveillance program. To the extent these contentions stem from concerns apart from the allegations arising out of the steel supplied by American Bridge, CEU has utterly failed to supply sufficient information in its contentions to put other parties on notice as to what consistent failures it refers to and when it learned of these failares.
For example, it cannot be determined whether CEV has good cause for filing Contention one (1) and two (2) out of time until CEV explains what material HL&P and Brown & Root have " consistently failed to adequately" inspect and when CEU first learned of this consistent failure. Similarly, with respect to Contention three (3), CEV must supply information as to when it learned HL&P and Brown & Root allegedly consistently failed to prevent the use of defective materials in the South Texas Project, what these specific materials are, and when the Intervenor first learned of this
condition.0l Absent such requisite information, all the parties have before them, with respect to the first four contentions, are broad brushed charges with insufficient information to respond in the context of the first factor set forth in 10 C.F.R 9 2.714.
Contentions five (5) through eight (8), in contrast, address speci-fic inadequacies relative to the structural steel supplied by the American Bridge Division of the United States Steel Corporation.U Based upon a reading of CEU's motion, it might be inferred that the first time CEV was aware of any potential problem of safety significance relative to structural steel supplied by American Bridge was after reading the three newspaper articles in the American Statesman attached to its motion.
However, the
^
record on this matter reveals CEU, as well as all other parties, and the Board had reason to be aware of this situation no later than February 6, 1981.E 1
8]
CEU nas ben on notice long before the articles which appeared in the American Statesmen that HL&P has had problems in the vendor surveillance area in the past.
For example, on at least two earlier occasions HL&P reported breakdowns in its vendor surveillance program.
On June 13, 1980 HL&P reported a breakdown in quality program-procurement cycle of purchased materials and on September 18, 1980 HL&P reported a breakdown in its vendor surveillance program for electrical equipment. See, items 32,.45 and 51 of Appendix C to the prefiled Staff testimony of William A. Crossman, et. al., filed April 23, 1981.
9/
To the extent new contentions one (1) through four (4) stem from concerns generated by the structural steel supplied by American Bridae, the timeliness of these contentions can be addressed along with.ontentions five (5) through eight (8).
1_0f The NRC regional inspection and enforcement staff had first been 0
notified, pursuant to 10 CFR s 50.55(e)(2), by telephone on January 8, 1981, that there was a 9 50.55(e) reportable deficiency concerning structural steel supplied by American Bridge.
. At tnat time, HL&P submitted its first interin written report in accord-ance with 10 CFR b 50.55(e)(3). Subsequently, HL&P submitted its second written interin report on this matter on June 1,1981.b Copies of both reports are attached to this pleading collectively as Appendix B.
In addition, ir.cluded in the Staff's prefiled testimony of William A.
Crossman, et. al., filed and dated April 23, 1981, is Appendix C, which lists all reported 9 50.55(e) items on the South Texas Project.
Item 51 on page 5 of that list cites the reporting by HL&P of American Bridge structural steel deviating from AWS code requirements on January 8,1981.
CEV has completely failed to give any explanation as to why it did not raise these new contentions when it first received information rela-tive to the American Bridge situation in early 1981 or at least prior to the commencement of this heating in May.
In addition, CEU failed to explain why its concerns in tlis area were not raised with the numerous HL&P management and technical panels which, assumedly, could have ad-dressed during cross-examination the questions currently expressed by CEO in the form of new contentions. E In short, it is the Staff's position that 1_1/ CEU's Motion stat'es in its search of the Public Document Room it was unable to find any 9 50.55(e) reporting on this matter. A review of the service list of all 9 50.55(e) correspondence on this matter, however, reveals CEU's Peggy Buchorn was provided a copy of each such correspondence, along with all other parties and members of the Board.
1_2/ During the eight (8) weeks and more than 9,000 pages of this expe-dited hearing CEV has had amply opportunity to question numerous panels presented by the Applicant on this very subject.
Certainly, any of the panels where Messrs. Oprea, Frazar, Broom or Vurpillat appeared could have answered CEU's concerns.
i
no good cause has been offered or exists for CEU's failure to raise these new contentions in a more timely manner. Therefore, this factor weighs against adminicn of any of CEU's eight (8) proposed contentions, 11.
Availability of Other Means to Protect Interest The Stoff submits this is an important factor in the disposition of the instant motion inasmuch as alternate means exist to protect CEU's interest in the area of vendor surveillance.
First, the structural steel supplied by American Bridge which gave rise to the instant motion is currently being resolved by riL&P through its 9 50.55(e) program and any resolution will be reviewed for adequacy by NRC reactor inspectors.
This process is currently in progressb and to circumvent that process and interject this unresolved matter as an amalgam of additional contentions in this proceeding is at best inefficient.
The available alternative means of evaluating this matter is to permit the Applicant's 9 50.55(e) program to resolve the American Bridge item and to-allow the Office of Inspection and Enforcement of the NRC to review that corrective action for adequacy.
If at that time CEU still is dissatisfied with the resolution of the structural steel supplied by American Bridge, it can then seek to have a more focused contention be litigated during the full operating license nearing in this matter. The Board should not lose site of the fact that currently this is a special, expedited hearing mandated by the Commission 13/ NRC Staff counsel is informed that HRC reactor inspector Dan Tomlinson has already examined over 600 welds and has found them to be in conformance with current industry standards. Mr. Tomlinson is a specialist in the area of welding and will continue to monitor this situation. His initial findings will appear in I&E Report 80-31 as an unresolved matter. This report is due to be issued in early October and will be supplied to all parties and the Board.
in its order of September 22, 1980. This factor should weigh heavily in denying the admissions of any further contentions during this phase of the operating license proceeding.
iii.
Development of a Sound Record The admission of any of the eight (8) proposed contentions at this time will not did in the development of a sound record. With respect to new contentions one (1) through four (4), CEV has simply failed to provide sufficient detail to put the parties on notice as to what its concerns are apart from the structural steel supplied by American Bridge. See, s 1, supra. With respect to Contentions Six (6) through Eight (8), a sound record can best be developed by permitting the Applicant to resolve the matter giving rise to this motion as a S 50.55(e) item and permitting the Staff to review that resolution for adequacy. At that time, if CEO is still unsatisfied with the actions taken, it can seek to have a more focused contention be admitted for litigation during the full operating license hearing. Such a course of action would promote the development of a sound record and accordingly this factor must be weighed against the admissions of the eight (8) proffered contentions. b l
iv. Broaden Issues or Delay Hearings The admission of any of the proposed cantentions will inevitably broaden the issues currently before this Board. The motion itself l
acknowledges "LtJhese contentions will clearly involve extensive liti-gation and will require the presentation of additional witnesses by the i
14f It should be also kept in mind that CEU, as a party, has demon-strated no unique capability to develop these contentions and 1
promote the development of a sound record.
. Applicant." Motion p. 5.
The admission r.f any of these contentions will undoubtedly broaden and delay the expedited phase of this hearing.
Delay would follow the admission of any of these contentions in order to dllow time for the parties to engage in discovery, to permit time for the Applicant to complete its corrective action, and for the Staff to inspect tnat action for adequacy.
To admit any of the proposed contentions now would be premature and create delay. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of d aying the admission of each contention.
B.
ALL OF CEU'S PROPOSED CONTENTIONS ARE OVERLY BRUA0 AND VAGUE Arid CONSEQUENTLY FAIL TO MEET THE BASES AND SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. 1 2.714(b).
As a general matter, in order for proposed contentions to be found admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the ilotice of Hearing initiating the proceeding, and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law.
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Enerqy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Unit No.1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973).
10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which an intervenor seeks to litigate be filed with the Board along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. E The purpose of the bases requirement of 15/ A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory require-ments; FOOTNOTE CONTINUED OH NEXT PAGE
. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b) is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities set forth in Peach Bottom, 8 AEC at 20-21 (see, f tnt.15), to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the pro-ceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
The Staff recognizes that at the early stages of a proceeding initial contentions need only identify the reasons for each contention.
See Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980).
In contrast, here extensive discovery has already occurred and the hearing is well under way.
In dddition, documents pertinent to the new contentions have been available to CEV since early 1981. Certainly in this context generalized allega-tions are clearly insufficient and CEV is required to come forward with a
_1_5/ FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FR0l1 PRECEDING PAGE 5
(b) it challenges the basic structure of Cornission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudi-cation in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
specific factual basis for any late-filed contention. E. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-654, llRC (September 11,1981) (Intervenors required to make a stronger showing of bases for their contentions in order to gain an evidentiary hearing on the health effects of radon emissions).
For example, in Contentions one (1) and two (2) CEU does not inform the parties specifi-cally what inspections HL&P or Brown and Root consistently failed to perform.
Similarly, in Contentica three (3) CEU fails to inform the parties what materials have consistently been permitted to be used in a defective condition.
Even with regard to Contentions six (6) through eight (8), CEU never states how the American Bridge steel is defective or substandard or how it constitutes a threat to the public health and safety.
Throughout its pleading CEU characterizes defects in this steel as serious, but it never states in what way they are serious. Accordingly, each contention should be denied as overly broad and not setting forth a bases with reasonable specificity.
III. C0t4CLUSIO!4 For the reasons aforesaid, the Staff submits that neither good cause
. exists for, nor does a consideration of the other factors in 10 C.F.R.
t 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) weigh in favor of, the admission of any of CEU's pro-posed contentions.
In addition, the bases for each contention has not been set forth with reasonable specificity as required by 1U C.F.R.
1 16 -
9 2.714(b) so as to make dny of the proposed contentions proper for liti-gation. Accordingly, the Staff submits CEU's motion for new contentions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, M
,,4t _.
ay M. G errez Counsel for liRC Staff lJated et Bethesda, Maryland this 28th ddy of September,1981.
t
- i 4
I
+-
w
--v w-9y
+-3+.-
7-9,,
,,ygw.,,.q--n
.w w-r-g-y%-.wy 4w. - - ymm-q
-myw-y-am...mm-m--
9m yv-c-e,-.
rw
.-ee e
APPENDIX A Eleven Board Questions Q1. All parties are to respond to the motion filed by CEV with regard to each of the eight proposed new contentions.
A t.. The Staff has responded to each of CEU's proposed contentions in Section II of its brief to which this list of questions and answers is attached.
Q2. Has HL&P complied with all NRC reporting requirements with respect to the structural steel question?
A2.
Yes.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R g 50.55(e)(2) HL&P notified, by telephone on January 8,1981, both NRC Resident Reactor Inspector H. S. Phillips and the Huclear Regulatory Commission Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office, Arlington, Texas, of a reportable deficiency relative to structural steel welds on steel provided by American Bridge.
In addition, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(e)(3) an interim report was submitted in writing to the NRC Regional Office on February 6,1981. A second interim report was submitted to the NRC Regional Office on June 1, 1981. All parties to this proceeding and the Board were sent copies of both interim reports. These reports are attached to this brief, together with the service lists, collectively referred to as Appendix B.
y3. Was the NRC Staff and, in particular, Staff counsel on this case, aware of this particular QC problem prior to the newspaper articles submitted by CEU?
. A3. Yes. The NRC Staff was advised as described in response to question 2.
Staff counsel was sent the interim report on February 6, 1981, along with the other parties to this proceeding and the Board.
44.
Have HL&P and Brown & Root, allowed use of defective structural steel in the South Texas Project?
A4.
Insofar as the Staff currently has knowledge, no. The 5 50.55(e) generated as a result of the structural steel supplied by American Bridge is still an unresolved item and will be the subject of further NRC inspection.
To date, no. evidence has been developed, after inspection of over 600 welds by the NRC, to indicate HL&P or Brown & Root allowed the use of defective structural steel.
45.
If so, is there any possibility that defective structural steel has been used in safety-related structures?
AS. See answer to question 4.
y6.
Is there any potential public health or safety threat which results from this situation?
A6.
Insofar as the Staff currently has knowledge and pending comple-tion of its inspection of HL&P's corrective action, no.
47.
Is it now possible, through inspection, to arrive at definitive answers to the three preceding questions?
And, as a part of this same question:
Has this been done?
A7. No, a review of HL&P's corrective action in response to the 9 50.55(e) arising out of the steel supplied by American Bridge is currently in progress. An interim report of the review of this matter by the
NRC's Inspection and Enforcement Office will appear in I&E Report 81-31, due to be issued in early October.
- 48. What pronpted the HL&P press release on the structural steel QC problem?
A8. The Staff has no knowleage to form a response to this question.
- 49. What is CCANP's interest in the new contentions?
A9. The Staff has no knowledge to form a response to this question.
Q10.
Does CCAHP wish to join in sponsoring these contentions.
A10.
Tne Staff has no knowledge to form a response to this question.
Q11. What relationship, if any, exists between QC surveillance activi-ties for structural steel at the Comanche Peak Plant and at STP?
All.
With respect to the adnagement of the surveillance effort, Staff counsel is informed no relationship exists. The Comanche Peak surveillance program is directed and managed by the Applicant-Utility whereas Brown & Root directs and manages the surveillance program at STP.
4
Ui41TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMlC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUST0ft LIGHTING AllD POWER COMPANY,)
Docket Nos. 50-498 U &.
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD E. SELLS STATE OF MARYLAND s
CoullTY OF MortTGOMERY s DullALO E. SELLS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the Project Manager, South Texas Project, United States Nuclear Regulatory Cormission; that the foregoing Staff Response to the eleven (11) questions posed by the Board on September 18, 1981, has been prepared under his supervision ano direction; that he knows the contents thereof; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief said responses and the facts contained therein are true and correct.
DATED this MY day of Septecber,1981.
- f SIGNED:
1 Donald E. Sells SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me this 2[ day of September,1981.
c
//b
'z Notary Public/in af for the County of Montgomery, State of Maryland 14y Commission expires k A/9[M
/
0
l' C
L The Light Company souston u hting & Power P.O. Box 1700 Houston Texas 77001 p13)228 9211 s
February 6,1981 ST-HL-AE-617 SFN: V-0530 m_
s._
Director, RCI, OIE Mr. Karl Seyfrit
~
Director, Region IV Dir ctor.. AEOD C
f, DEB, MPA.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission FILES 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
South Texas Project Units 1&2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Interim Report Concerning Vendor Fabricated Structural Steel Pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), Houston. Lighting & Power Company notified your office on January 8,1981, of an item related to nonconfomances of welds in vendor fabricated Category I structural steel. These welds were perfomed at the fabricator's facility and are not associated with the on-site welding pro-The components involved have been received at the site and are applicable The original observation gram.
to safety-related structures of STPEGS, Units 1 and 2.As a result of the ADR, a was documented in an edit deficiency report (ADR).
reinspection program was initiated for the Category I structural steel components.
This program has resulted in the identific.ation of numeroes weld conditions which deviate from design drawings, specifications, and/or code (AWS '.J1.1).
As imediate response to this situation, Vendor Surveillance personnel were provided with verbal and written direction to ensure that equipment and documen-tation supplied by vendors are to be in. str.i.ct accordance with the requirements Prior to any further shipment of of the respective procurement documents.
Category I structural steel components, a surveillance inspection on 100% of all These welded material will be performed consistent with the procurement docurr. ant.
actions will serve to prevent a recurrence o'f nonconfoming weld conditions.
Non-An inspection program for the on-site structural steel is in progress.
confaming conditions are being documented on nonconformance reports (NCR's).
These NCR's are being submitted for engineering evaluation of structural signifi-These NCR's represent Presently, forty (40) NCP's have been evaluated.
Thirty-cance.
beams and' colums in the Mechanical Electrical Auxiliary Building.
APPENDIX B m p( 0, y
> < i; z ?9
(C a
,uston Lighting & Power Company February 6,1981 ST-HL-AE-617 SFN: V-0530 Page 2 one (31) of these components have been installed.
The nonconformances documented are predominently undersized welds and undercut. While the forty (40) NCR's document violations of design drawings and/or AWS D1.1 requirements, to date, no safety hazard has been identified relative to these nonconfoming weld con-ditions.
l We shall provide our next report on our ongoing activities on this matter by June 1, 1981.
Very truly yours, i
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President 1
JGW/mmf 4
0 E
r
, ~ - -. -
O
.(~
,(
February 6,1981 oston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-617 SFN: V-0530 Page 3 i
cc:
J. H. Goldberg D. G. Barker Howard Pyle R. L. Waldrop H. R. Dean D. R. Beeth J. D. Parsons G. B. Painter L. K. English A. J. Granger R. A. Frazar H. S. Phillips (NRC)
J. O. Read (Read-Poland, Inc.)
M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman (Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad)
Director, Office of-Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
-~
- -, - - -, -,, <. ~, -,, -,,, - -.-
,,,,n-
- ~
4(
a.
.uston Lighting & Power Compariy 19 I 3
7 SFN: V-0530 Page 4 M. L. Borchelt Executive Vice President Central Power & Light Company P. O. Box 2121 l
i Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 I
R. L. Range Central Power & Light Company P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R. L. Hancock Director of Electrical Utilities City of Austin P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 T. H. S ehlenbeck i
City of Austin P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J. B. Poston i
Assistant General Manager of Operations City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Anton.o, Texas 78296 A. vonRosenberg City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78296
F
[
(
.ouston Lighting & Power Co:mpanY February 6,1981 ST-HL-AE-617 SFN: V-0530 Page 5 Charles Bechcefer, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Cannission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Citizens for Equitable Utilities c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn Route 1, Box 1684 Srazoria, Texas 77422 Pat Coy Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 77422 Betty Wheeler Hoffrer, Steeg & Wheeler 1008 S..Nadison Amarillo, Texas Brian E. Berwick Assistant Attorney Gcneral for the State of Texas P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Bernard M. Bordenick Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
~
I
(
The Light company Houston ughting & Power P.o. sox 1700 Houston. Texas 77001 (71*:228 921 June 1, 1981 ST-HL-AE-672 SFN: V-0530 JE FILE COPY.
eaECGa1{
,iy Mr. Karl Seyfrit iJ
[ 2 u,,,Upl0 'Ib8I k Director, Region IV 94 J
'2.
1 Nuclear Regulatory Comission cett,ypoes[
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 3,.
qf v..x
.g
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
% } {d South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Second Interim Report Concerning Vendor Fabricated Structural Steel Please find attached our second interim report regarding ncnconformances of welds in vendor fabricated Category I structural steel. This item was,
previously reported to your affice under the reouirements of 10CFR50.55(e) on January 8, 1981. The next interim report will be submitted to your office by October 1, 1981.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 676-8592.
Very truly yours, 9
[!
n.f re,
r,ct(tive e President l
l RRH/anj Attachments t
l b
bs I
s y..&o(
S *z os oso ggg,
(
(
Houston Ughting & Power Company cc:
J. H. Goldberg June 1, 1981 D. G. Barker ST-HL-AE-672 C. G. Robertson SFN:
V-0530 Howard Pyle Page 2 R. L. Waldroo H. R. Dean D. R. Beeth J. D. Parsons L. K. English J. W. Briskin R. A. Frazar STP RMS H. S. Phillips (NRC)
J. O. Read (Read-Poland,Inc.)
M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman (Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad)
Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 M. L. Borchelt Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire President Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Central Power & Light Company V. S. N; clear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2121 Washington, D. C.
20555 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R. L. Range Dr. James C. Lamb, III Central Power & Light 313 Woodhaven Road P. O. Box 2121 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R. L. Hancock Mr. Ernest E. Hill Director of Electrical Utilities Lawrence Livermore Laboratory City O' Austin University of Califcenia P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 808, L-123
~
Austin, Texas 78767 Livermore, California 194550 T. H. Muehlenbeck Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
City of Austin c/o Ms. Peqqy Buchorn P. O. Bux 1088
' Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, Texas 78767 Brazoria, Texas 77422 J. B. Poston Pat Coy Assistant General Manager of Operations Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power City Public Service Board 5106 Casa Oro P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78233 San Antonio, Texas 78296 A. vonRosenberg Lanny Sinkin City Public Service Board 2207-D, Nueces P. O. Box 1771 Austin, Texas 78705 San Antonio, Texas 78296 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire Jay Gutierrez, Esquire Assistant Attorney for the State of Texas Hearing Attnrney P. O. Box 12548 Office of the Executive Leoal Director Capitol Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C.
20555 28-81
(
Second Interim Report Concerning Vendor Fabricated Structural Steel This.second interim report provides a status update of activities undertaken to resolve the nonconforming weld conditions for Category I structural steel.
The program initiated to reinspect vendor supplied Category I structural steel is continuing.
In accordance with project procedures, nonconformance reports have been written on each nonconforming condition identified to date.
In general, the identified conditions have predominantly consisted of undersized welds and undercut. As the nonconformance reports are issued, they are forwarded for an Engineering evaluation.
The Engineering evaluation is performed to assess the acceptability of the actual fabricated weld conditions relative to the applicable design loads. No nonconforming weld ccnditions have been identified as representing a failure condition (i.e. safety hazard) at this time. Some welds have been identified for rework in order to reestablish project design margins or to support the construction schedule.
Independent welding consultants with extensive AWS Code experience (including active Committee members) have inspected the welds identified as being in nonconformance with AWS 01.1.
Their finding stated that the Quality Control acceptance criteria implemented on thc South Texas Project was in fact, more stringent than those required by the AWS Code.
As a result of the consultants findings, the project interpretation of _ AWS Code requirements is being reevaluated in order to better define the scope and acceptance criteria for AWS welds.
9 9
._,m_-,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM*ilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY,)
Docket Nos. 50-498 jT AL_.
50-499 (South Texas Froject, Units 1 & 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CEU'S MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS" with APPENDIX A and B, in the above-CaDtioned proceeding have been served on the followina by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Reaulatory Commission's internal nail system, this 28th day of September,1981:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Brian Berwick, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb III Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Ro.J Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Mr. Ernest E. Hill Washington, DC 20036 Administrative Judge Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Mrs. Peggy Buchorn P.O. Box 808, L-123 Executive Director Livermore, CA 94500 Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
Route 1, Box 1684 baker and Botts Brazoria, TX 77442 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Lanny Sinkin Citizens Concerned About William S. Jorda., III, Esq.
Nuclear Power Harmon & Weiss 2207 D. Nueces 1725 I Street, N.W.
Austin, TX 78705 Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006
f a
Kim Eastman, Cot.;nrdinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Barbara A. Miller Panel
- Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cit?7 ens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Antonio, TX 78233 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 C
sel for.p/ fez
. Guti ERC Staff o
I t
.-_.-.-..-n..
. _ - _