ML20030E191
| ML20030E191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1981 |
| From: | Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109180151 | |
| Download: ML20030E191 (6) | |
Text
~
- x
[
x A
cxy y
l;~
s run
- unn, T
B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEpjyggg g
{
I Wi' 17,}gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f"g acrg q
A E
RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARh g
j I'
Nd na
,~
In the M3tter of
)
p
)
HOUSTON ' LIGHTING AND POWER COMP ANY
)
Docket No. 5J-498 (South Texas Proj ect, Units 1 and 2)
)
CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS BASED ON NEW INFORMATION AND TO ESTABLISH A DISCOVERY AND HEART.NG SCHEEULE WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW CONTENTIONS On the basis of recent newspaper reports and subsequent initial inves tiga tion, Citizens for Equitable Utilities moves for the admis-sion of ssveral new contentions that go to the heart of the two major issues in this hearing: (1) the failure of quality assurance at the South Texas Project, and (2) the lack of corporate character and competence on the part of Houston Lighting and Power Company to assure the safe construction of the proj ect.
The newspaper articles, which appear to be based on information provided by HL&P, are attached.
They indicaw that over the last four years HL&P has accepted several thousand beams and other pieces of major structural steel that did not conform to the f
requirements of the American Welding Society, and that a subs tan-tial amount of that steel was installed in the plant before the deficiencies were discovered.
According to the articles, the defective s teel was considered acceptable by Brown and Root personnel involved in vendor surveil
- lance b
8109180151 810910 h0(
PDR ADOCK 05000498 G
-2 at the American Bridge f acilities where it was produced, and many, if not mos t, of the deficiencies were not discovered by quality control inspectors at the South Texas Project site.
The articles also indicate that once the deficiences were dis-covered, which resulted in hundreds of nonconformance reports, the inspection procedures were changed to reduce the number of nonconf ormanc es, and quality control inspectors believed that the changes would result in the acceptance of serious defects.
Finally, the articles cito both HL&P and the NRC Staff as indicating that the deficiencies had been reported to the NRC.
However, in searching the Public Document Room we have been unable to find any record of written reports to the NRC concerning this matter, as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Accordingly, CEU submits the following contentions for liti-gation in this phase of the operating license proceeding:
1.
HL&P and B&R have consis tently f ailed to perform adequate inspections or to control the quality of materials for the South Texas Project at the site of the supplier, as required by Section VII of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
2.
HL&P and B&R have consis tently f ailed to perform adequate inspections or to control the quality of material prior to its acceptance at the site for use in the South Texas Project, as required by Sections X and VII of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
3.
HL&P and B&R have consis tently f ailed to prevent tha use of defective materials in the South Texas Proj ect, as required by Sections X, VII and I of ;0 CFR P.+rt 50, App endix 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
e
-3r or of the quality assurance activities of its vendors, including American Bridge, in viola-tion of Sections II and VII of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
5.
HL&P has failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55 (e. (1)(1) and (iii), and (e)(3 ) with 5
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 inspec-tion of some areas, with the result that the procedures permit the acceptance of steel containing serious defects and the overlooking of substandard welds, in violation of Sections I, VII, and X of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
7.
The use of the substandard and defective steel from American Bridge that has been installed in the South Texas Project con-stitutes a threat to the public health and safety that can be cured only by a complete reinspection and correction of all of the steel supplied by that company.
The Act prohibits the issuance of an oper ating license for this facility until the reinspection and correction has been completed.
8.
The f ailure 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.
The bases for all of the above contentions are contained in the attached newspaper articles.
They are also supported by the i
attached I&E Report No. 80-23, under cover letter dateo November 19, 1980, concerning the f ailure of Brown and Root vendor surveil-lance in the area of steel procurement at the Comanche Peak
-4,-
plant.
(See Item 6a on page 5 of the I&E Report).
This new evidence related to the South Texas Project and the Comanche PeaP. f ailures of Brown and Root confirm CEU's belief that the heart of the problems at the douth Texas Project is Brown and' Root.
The evidence establishes that the company simply does not give adequate attention to quality and is not capable of adhering to the s trict standards required for nuclear construction.
We urge the Board, the NRC Staff, and the Applicant to short circuit and simplify this extra-ordinarily cumbersome hearing process by recognizing that Brown and Root must be replaced and doing so immediately.
This is not to say that we are fully satisfied with HL&P's performance, by any means.
To the contrary, the latest informa,-
tion and the LLE Report from nearly a year ago raises serious ques tions concerning whether HL&P was paying adequate attention to B&R's actions, particularly in the period since the Show Cause Order in early 1980.
This new information flies directly in the f ace of all of the testimony thus f ar to t.he effect that HL&P now has things under control.
It is essential that this matter be litigated in full.
4 This f ailure of quality control is extremely extensive and requires trea tment equivalent to that previously given to the concrete and welding deficiencies at the site.
At a minimum, it requires the opportunity for extensive investigation and dis-covery in order to determine the full extent of the problem and to resolve apparent inconsistencies in the information contained in the various newspaper articles.
T Accordingly, CEU moves that the Board establish a discovery period of at least 60 days to permit at least two rounds of interrogatories and interviews or depositions of all of the HL&P and B&R personnel involved in dealing with American Bridge.
In order to expedite'the discovery, CCC has prepared and is serving with this Motion its first set of interrogatories on the subj ect.
These contentions will clearly involve extensive litigation and will require the presentation of additional witnesses by the Applicant.
They may also result in the discovery of information' '
that alters CEU's case and that of the NRC Staf f.
Accordingly, it would not be productive to continue the hearing beyond the Applicant 's case until the parties are prepared to address these contentions as well.
Therefore, CEO moves that the remainder of the evidentiary portion of this hearing be continued indefi-nitely following the close of the Applicant's case as currently scheduled.
We propose, instead, to devote those weeks to l
extensive discovery to expedite consideration of these contentions.
We recognize that th{ Board feels a responsibility to complete this phase of the hearing in an expedited manner, as directed by the Commission, and that it may be concerned about the delay that might be caused by consideration of these contentions at this point.
While we appreciate that concern, these contentions go directly to the point that the Commission has directed the Board to address - the adequacy of quality assurance at the South Texas Project, and the lack of corporate character and competence on the part o f HL& P.
If this evidence were ignored now or lef t to later,
-6.-
the Board 's initial decison would be of lit tle significance.
Indeed, the Board has already recognized this problem by calling upon the Applicant to present its new personnel as they arrive at the proj ec t.
This allows the Applicant to strengthen its case as we go along.
In that context, it would be grossly unfair to prevent the intervenors from raising issues on the basis of net, evidence that indicates that the Applicant's alleged improvements have. tot resulted in the improvement of quality at the South Texas Proj ect.
Respectfully submitted,
.d.sc.,J/.C/sA:1:
a y
William S. Jordan, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Was hi ng t on,
D.C.
20006 (202) 831-9070 DATED:
September 10, 1981 S
,