ML20024D440
| ML20024D440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1983 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024D441 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308050027 | |
| Download: ML20024D440 (5) | |
Text
August 3, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-413
)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF ANSWER SUPPORTING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTION 6 1.
INTRODUCTION On July 15, 1983, Applicant's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition Regarding Palmetto Alliance Contention 6 (" Motion"), with supporting affidavits, was served on the parties.
In its Memorandum and Order, dated July 20, 1983, the Licensing Board established July 29, 1983 as the date for the Staff's response to Applicant's Motion. On July 27, 1983 the Staff by motion requested an extension of time until August 5, 1983, in which to serve said response, i.ounsel for Palmetto Alliance and for Applicants advised counsel for the Staff that they did not oppose the filing of the Staff's request. The Board Chairman granted the extension by telephone on July 28, 1983, provided that the Staff response be served on counsel for Palmetto Alliance by express mail.
The Staff, through the accompanying Affidavit of Jack C. Bryant in Support of Sumary Disposition of That Part of Palmetto Alliance Contention 6 Based on Allegations of Nolan L. Hoopingarner and William DEcTC'7ATED ORIGINAL Certified By WM 7 3
D 0
0 00 3
G PDR V
0
- Ronald McAfee, supports the conclusions in the Applicants' Motion that neither Mr. Hoopingarner nor Mr. McAfee has presented any material fact which shows (1) there have besn systematic deficiencies in construction of the Catawba plant, (2) there has been any company pressure to approve, faulty workmanship, or (3) that there are any uncorrected construction deficiencies or noncompliances with the quality assurance requirements in Ainendix B, Part 50, which constitute a threat to the health and safety of the public.
II. DISCUSSION Mr. Bryant's Affidavit Fully Supports Summary Disposition of the Allegations of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee As originally proffered, Contention 6 was primarily, if not exclusively, based on allegations made by Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee. These two former employees at the Catawba plant submitted affidavits in support of the Palmetto Alliance intervention petition, were identified as persons being relied upon for Contention 6 at the first prehearing conference in January 1982, were so identified in responses to interrogatories, and have been identified as potential witnesses on Contention 6.
In the Licensing Board's May 13, 1983 Order compelling further discovery responses on Contention 6, the Board noted "the prominence of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee in this contention,"
I and directed that they be made available to answer questions in deposi-tion. Their depositions were taken on May 19 and 20,1983, in which Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee were requested to identify the facts supporting the allegations in Contention 6.
As noted in Applicants'
O.
Motion,at13,"[b]othgentlemenstatedthatthedepositionreflected each and every concern they had with respect to Contention 6.
See McAfee Deposition ('MD') at Tr.99-100, 114-115; Hoopingarner Deposition
('HD') at Tr.107."
The attached affidavit of Mr. Bryant, who supervised Staff inspection personnel at Catawba for ten years, between November 1972 and Deceinber 1982, reviews each allegation made by Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee as stated in their depositions. His review of each specific item identified shows that, taken individually, none represented a material fact tending to show that any portion of the plant as built is in any way deficient from the perspective of plant safety. The affidavit demonstrates that the allegations are either: vague, failing to identify specific parts of the plant, the dates and times, and the specific people involved; based on faulty understanding of technical requirements for construction; based on minor discrepancies or deficiencies as to which there is direct evidence that they were corrected; based on non-recurring nonconformances which were appropriately documented and corrected; or do not pertain to the safety of the plant but rather to worker safety.
More fundamentally, however, the affidavit shows that the few substantiated deficiencies were not systematic, being isolated instances which, because the quality assurance program was working properly, were identified and corrected.
In addition, the allegations purportedly showing company pressure to approve faulty workmanship were actually based on a misinterpretation of the application of Appendix B, Part 50 to minor discrepancies capable of ininediate correction, not involving
m__.._.
engineering judgment or recurring actions. Affidavit,1 33,34. Thus, encouraging a QC inspector to get the crafts to correct minor discrepancies on the spot, rather than to write NCI's, is not a violation of the requirement to document significant nonconformances.
In sum, the allegations, L.,th -
separately and when considered with respect to the broader issues of
" systematic deficiencies," " company pressure to approve faulty workmanship,"
and their characterization by the Board as involving " corner cutting" and
" company attitudes and practices," do not present any material facts showing that (1) any portion of the plant was built improperly, (2) any substantiated construction deficiency went uncorrected, (3) any noncompliance with Appendix B, Part 50 occurred, or (4) any t.hreat to the health and safety of the public exists.
In addition to the attached affidavit of Mr. Bryant, the Staff, in response to the request of the Board Chainnan, fomarded various inspection reports and other summaries to the Board and parties by letter on September 14, 1982, detailing the Region II Inspection and Enforcement Staff follow-up on the allegations of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee. Additional information following up on this matter was fomarded to the Board by letter, dated October 8,1982. The Staff believes that the attached Affidavit of Mr. Bryant, taken together with the other papers submitted in this proceeding, including Palmetto's interrogatory responses, the depositions of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee, the affidavits submitted by Applicants, and other documentary material submitted by the Staff, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact raised by Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee, that a decision favorable to the Applicants' motion is required
as a matter of law, and that sununary disposition of that part of Contention 6 based upon the allegations of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee is fully supported.
10 CFR Section 2.749.
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff urges that the Board grant Applicants' motion for summary disposition that part of Contention 6 based on the allegations of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee.
Resp tfully submitted, tL[ w u
rge. John n
Counsel for NR Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of August, 1983 i
l
._.