ML20032B095
| ML20032B095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Eva Hill, John Lamb Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111040420 | |
| Download: ML20032B095 (8) | |
Text
--
P
- 1..
DOCKETED USNRC g
J1 NOV-2 mi 57
- / b~ C h
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 91 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VO 3198)>
0FFICE OF SECRETAF r 00MT$$dCfi
,g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD p
$'/
Before Administrative Judges:
,7 Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman SERy[ggOV2 yggy v3 Dr. James C. Lamb Mr. Ernest E. Hill
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
October 30, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND C? DER (Scheduling Prehearing Conference and Evidentiary Hearing on Transition Period Construction Activ'ities)
By letter dated October 16, 1981, from the Executive Vice President of Houston Lighting and Power Co. to the Director', Region IV, l'RC, the Applicants requested NRC Staff concurrence in a plan for continuing safety-related work during the transition period in which certain of the project's engineering and construction management responsibilities are to be shifted from Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) to Bechtel Corp.1/ The Board had been
~-1/ A copy of this letter was served on toe Licensing Board and parties to thi; proceeding. As used in this Memorandum and Order, transition period refers to the period during whici i.he werk items spelled out in the attachments to the October 16 etttr are to be carried out and is not intended to encompass the possibly different time period in which the entire transition from B&R to Becht el is to occur.
GOY
$UR$80Poyfgggo, Vft PDR
p -
preliminarily advised of the proposed organizational change; by the Applicants' letter of September 24,1S31.
In a telephone conference call on October 7,1981, however, the Board also was a;'rised that the extent of the transition from B&R to Bechtel had not been determined.
Specifically, we were informed that it was possible that construction as well as design engineering and construction management responsibilities would also be transferred from B&R to Bechtel.
See Memorandum and Order (Concerning Changes in Schedule for Hearings), dated October 8,1981, at p. 2.
According to the October 16, 1981 letter, the transition period during which the specified safety activities are to be undertaken will extend for about 4 months. Depending upon the timing of NRC Staff review of the transition period activities, those activities could be completed as early as mi d-Febru ary, 1982.
The decision whether to approve the plan for transition period' construction activites, as requested in the Applicants' letter of Octooer 16, 1981, is initially within the proviice of the NRC Staff. But because of the safety significance of the work to be p' rformed, the adequacy of the e
plan for performing this work has a clear bearing on whether, or on what terms, the South Texas Project should be licensed. Cf. 10 C.F.R. 2.717(b). The adequacy of that plan also may have a significant impact on the resolution of some of the contentions and other issues which are now before this Board.
For example, transition work is to be performed in particular areas with respect to which testimorly has already been presented in this proceeding, such as containment dome concrete, containment shell concrete,
Me vW -
These items, among others, ware -the subject ofc comments and criticism in -the report prepared by.Quadrex Corporation.
(" Design Review of Brown and Root Engineering Work for the South Texas Project," May,1981), transmitted 'to the Board on September ~28,J l981.
Because of the. safety significance of the transition work and th'e
. probability that it will have a-bearing on the. findings and. conclusions we-must' reach in this operatir.- license proceeding, we wish to be apprised of
~
the means by which the Applicants (including their contractors. Bechtel and,-
if applicable, B&R) plan to maintain quality with respect to the constru'ction of safety-related structures and equipment during the 1
transition period, and the means by which the NRC Staff plans to monitor the Applicants' commitments in this regard. Specifically, we call upon the Applicants and/or Staff, as appropriate, and other parties if they-wish, to address the following subjects:
1.
the general responsibilities during the transition period of HL&P, Bechtel and B&R with respect to the safety-related. work.specified in the October 16 letter; 2.
tne problem of assuring that adequate and competent construction-and QA/QC personnel remain on the-job or are brought to the -job (as applicable) during the transition period; 3.
the morale during the transition period of QA and QC personnel now
-employed by B&R, assuming either, partial or full replacement of B&R;
i --.
~
4.
the likelihood that problems related to safety and licenseability pointed out by the Quadrex report would (if they exist and to the extent they might affect transition-period construction as specified in the October 16 letter) be continued or even exacerbated during the transition period; 5.
the conformance of the items of safety-related transition period construction activites (Attachment A to October 16, 1981 letter)to the cr'.teria for performing transition period construction set-th in the body of the October 16 letter.
T.n particular, footnote -1 to Attachment A suggests that six work items do not conform to criterion 2.
In addition, based on issues raised in this proceeding and still not resolved, several work items appear not to conform with criterion 1; 6.
the possible safety significance of transition work designated as non-safety-related (Attachment B to October 16, 1981 letter).
In that connection, see Quadrex report, Section 3.l(d), vol.1, pp. 3-5 and 3-6; 7.
the degree to which the quality of safety-related work to be performed during the transition period can later be verified; and 8.
the relative safety implications of (a) stopping all safety-related work and work which might affect safety-related structures or equipment; (b) continuation of only such transition verk outlined in the letter dated October 16, 1981 as had already been commenced as of that date; or (c) continuation of wo'rk as proposed in the October 16, 1981 letter.
e~ In posing these areas of inquiry for the short term, we wish to stress that
~
we are concerned about the procedures to be followed jby the Applicants and Staff to assure the quality of work on ite's described in the October 16 m
letter.
For suen advice to be meaningful, it must be provid2d to us at an early date and, in any event, prior to the ex,niration of the transition period.
We therefore are scheduling an evidentiary hearing
'.o commence on Tuesday, December 8,1981, in Austin, Texas, to consider these questions. We expect the hearing to conclude no later than Thursday, December 10,1981, and earlier if possible.
To help meet this schedule, we invite (although we da not require) the parties (particularly the Applicants and Staff) to provide prepared testimony, which must be in our hands no later than Wednesday, November 25, 1981. Discovery on the limited issues involving construction during the transition period (which do not encompass the entire Quadrex report) may begin immediately anj shall ccnclude no later'than November 18, 1981.
If interrogato. ies are used, they should be filed by November 6,1981 and served either by pert olal service or by express mail.
Responses must also be served in this fashion.
We do not anticipate providing an opportunity in the short term for wr tten proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on transition-period construction, but we will accept oral statements of the parties' positions at the conclusion of the evidentiary sessions on this
a.
+.. _.
+
i- =
i f.
. subject.2/ To the extent-that'-the prehearing conference referred to in our. Memorandun and Oi der of. 0ctober 8,1981L is needed, it will be held on:
December 3, immediately prior'to=this hearing.
The issues of-what safety-related work should be continued during thel transition period ' and. the controls (if any)_ which NRC may. exercise :over such-work are being considered by the Licensing Board because of-the important safety significance of the questions, their bearing on toe adequacy of construction of the facility, and the possibility that the quality oflat.
least some of.the safety-related work may not be able to 'be adequately verified after construction has been completed. Although these issues might
[
be viewed as being raised by the Board sua sponte, their resolution is essential to provide an adequate record for us to rule on the broader QA matters which are before us. We are raising these questions solely. in.the contex't of our operating license authority, as enhanced by. the Commission's broad instructions to us in CLI-80-32,12 NRC 281 (1980), which pointed out that this operating license hearing cauld serve the gcal of a " full airing of all relevant information regarding the safety of the nuclear plant".
Iji.
ut 290.
In the Board's view, the adequacy of, and controls to be exercised 4
over, safety-related. transition work falls well within that grant of
[
authority.
In raising these issues, however, we recognize that tha halt of some or all safety-related work during the transition period is a possible octcome and that there is ame question of wFather we possess stop-work
~~2/ We will establish time limits for such statements after we ascertain the general positions to be taken by various parties during the evidentiary presentations.
authority.
If we were to determine that a work s'appage in whole or in part were necessary, we would consider various me s of effectuating that determinaticn, including certification to the Commission.3/
Because this Memorandan and Orda raises isstas which m*cht be deemed to be raised sua sponte by the Board, we are transmitting copies to the Commission and to the General Counsel, in &ccordance with the Commission's instructions appearing in the ~s cretary's memorandum of June 30, 1981 (subject:
" Raising of *.ssues Sua Sponte in Adjudicatory Proceedings").A[
For the foregoing reasons, it is, this 30th day of Octcber, 1981 ORDERED 1.
That an evidentiary hearirg ;o consider the questions outlined herein w;11 convene on December 8,1981, in Austin, Texas, at Austin Public
-3/ On October 29, 1981, we received copies of a CEV Petition to Suspend Construction (directed to the Commission) and a CEU Motion to Suspend Constrection (directed to this Board).
As we informed the parties by telephcne on Octob. - 29, this Memorandum and Order, which encompasses some of the matters raised by CEU, has been undce preparation since October 19, when we received the Applicants' October 16 letter, and in no way has been influenced by or is intended to respond to either of CEU's filings.
-4/
In relevant part, that Memorandum prov ides:
"'When a Licensing Board
. cises an issue sua sponte in an Operating License proceeding, it shall issue a separate order making the requisite findings, briefly state its reasons for raising the issue; and it shall forward a copy of that order to tne Office of the General Counsel and to the Commission
[T]he Boards shall continue to make the initial determination of whether a Board question is an exercise et sua sponte authority or a question asked to ensure the completeress of the Fecord on an aflitted contention.
Furthermore, the f act that on issue has been raised sua sponte, and that the Commission will be advised of that action by the Office of the General Counsel through its monitoring of adjudicatory proceedings, we ld not provide a basis for any party to fail to meet its obligation to respond expeditiously to the Board's questions."
o
-8 LiL. ary Auditorium, Fourth Floor, 800 Guadalupe, Aust in, Texas 78701. The her-ing will cormence at 9:30 a.m. or, if a prehearing conference is held, immediately following ti.e prehearing conference.
(On December 8 and 9, the hearing will commence at 9:15 a.m.)
2.
That discovery on these questions may co:anence in.nediately and shall conclude by November 18, 1981, and that interrogatories (if used) are to be governed by the standards set forth in this opinion.
3.
That prepared testimony, if it is to be filed, shall be delivered
- , the Board by November 25, 1981.
4.
That a prehearing conference, to the extent necessary, will be held immediately prior to the evidentiary '. ear ing, at 9:30 a.m. on December 8, 1961.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ernest L. Hill ADMINISTRATIVE 'UDGE
(
hi m b fh~d
.r./ James C. Lamb U[ADP.INISTRATIVEJUDGE sd j]! y%l Charles du/
n,
^
cnhoefte, Chairman /
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Issued at Rethesda, Maryland.
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ -