ML20032D542
| ML20032D542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111170239 | |
| Download: ML20032D542 (8) | |
Text
.
i 11/13/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Ct] r w/,
HOUST0li LIbHTING AND POWER COMPANY,)
)
50-499f &
/
(S t Texas Project Units 1 & 2) )
/
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REPLIES OF CEU AND CCANP I. INTRODUCTION 4
By a Board order dated October 9,1981, Intervenors Citizens for Equitable Utilities (CEU) and Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCAdP) were granted leave to file written responses to the positions which were taken by the Applicants (HL&P) and Staff in opposition to CEU's r.,otion of September 10, 1981, proposing rr.:w contentions.M CEV had already responded to the criticisms of HL&P and the Staff by i
y These new contentions were first submitted in "CEU Motion to File Additional Contentions Based on New Information and to Establish a Discovery and Hearing Schedule With Respect to the New Contentions,"
September 10, 1981. The scaff and Applicants originally responded to this motion by pleadings entitled "NRC Staff Response In Opposition to CEU's Motion to File Additional Contentions," September 28, 1981, and " Applicants' Brief In Opposition to CEO Motion to File Additional Contentions " September 30, 1981.
^
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL O hhh 8
Certified By j
', j ppg g
LWC ']
l/r
O -
i filing a supplement to its original pleading on October 6,1981 CCANP responded on October 23,1981.E On October 20, 1981 HL&P filed " Applicants' Motion for leave to Reply to Written Responses of CEU and CCANP."U In an order of November 3, 1981, the Board granted HL&P's request and permitted the Staff and Applicant to file replies to the Interunors' supplemental filings by November 13,1981.0 The Staff subnits that admission of CEU's eight (8) proposed con-tentions should;be denied for the reasons set forth in the Staff's original response of September 28, 1981, and reiterates its position that CEV failed to file the proffered contentions in a timely manner after receiving ade-quate notice of the Dreakdown in HL&P's vendor surveillance program.
2)
See, "CEV Response to Applicant and Staff Oppositions to Additional Contentions," dated October 6,1981 (CEU Response); and "CCANP Response to Applicant and Staff Oppositions to Additional Contentions," dated October 23,1981,(CCANPResponse).
3f In its motion, HL&P sought to reply to the Intervenors' supplemental filings on the ground that CEV raised new arguments in its October ',
1981, reply, and accordingly, a response from HL&P on these new matters would assist the Board in appropriately resolving the issues raised by CEU's motion for additional contentions. See, Applicants' motion, p. 1.
,4]
The Board limited HL&P's and the Staff's responses to matters previously rai.ed by CEU and CCANP, and assumedly, not addressed in prior pleadings.
Order, p. 2.
4 l
l
. i II. DISCUSSION The Intervenors' reply pleadings focus on an assertion that their attempts to now raise issues concerning vendor surveillance deficiencies and problems concerning structural steel welds are timely because they did not know the extent of these problems prior to recent newspaper articles. Thus, they conclude " good cause" exists for their raising these matters at this late date. However, the record on this matter demonstrates the Intervenors knew, or should have known, of problems in the area of vendor surveillance at least since February,1981.
Documents addressing general problems within the vendor surveillance program are the subject of Staff Exhibits 93, 102, 103, 104 and 105.
Specifically, Staff Exhibit 93 is an inspection report of April 17, 1981, which stated that a " breakdown" in the vendor contro', program'will be investigated in future I&E inspections.
In addition, Staff Exhibits 102, 103, 104 and 105 are reports concerning " Breakdown in Quality Program-Procurement Cycle of Purchased Material." Each of these reports was sent to CEU and CCANP in the period between July 14, 1980 and March 31, 1981.
l These reports particularly state that "the quality status of purchased l
j safety-related materials and equipment must be reestablished. See e.g.
I Staff Exh.102, p. 2; Staff Exh.104 Attachment p. 3.
Accordinglh,the a
Intervenors were informed of an overall problem in vendor surveillance at
[
least since July 1980, and therefore no " good cause" for the late submission l
of contentions in this area exists.
i l
l l
h
"~
r-.
i In regard to the steel supplied by the American Bridge Division of N.S. Steel Corp., this matter was the subject of a report by the Applicant tojne Comission~ on Februray 6,1981, copies of which were sent to both a
CEU and CCAHP. This notification stated:
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) Houston Lighting &
y Power Company notified your office on January 8, 1981, of an item related to noncotiformances of
-welds in vendor fabricated Category I structural steel, c These welds were performed at the fabricator's facility and are not associated with the: on-site welding program. The components involved have been received at the site and are L~
opplicable to safety-related structures of STPEGS, Units 1 and'2. The original observation was i ~
documentei in an audit deficiency report (ADR). As a result of the ADR, a reinspection program was
/
initiated for the Category I structural steel components. This 4rogram has resulted in the r
identificationTof' numerous weld conditions which deviate from !1esign drawings, specifications, and/or coe (AWS 01.1).
V
. As immediate response to this situation, Vendor
' gur.vei'
' personnel were provided with verbal ac'd w firection to Ensure that equipment and s
~ ' '
doca.s. don supplied by vendors are to be in strfcf accordance with the requirements of the
< ^,
regedti~yejrocorementdocuments.
Prior to any furtherfsniprent of Category I structural steel codq+nents, a surveillance inspection on 100% of k
' alt welded material will be performed consistent
' wit'r. 'the procurement document. These actions will serve to prevent a recurrence of nonconforming weld conditions.
Ar inspe'ction program for the on-site structural
-steel is in progress.
Nonconforming conditions are being docunented on nonconformance reports (NCR's).
i
-These NCR's are being submitted for engineering evaluation of structural significance.
Presently,
forty (40) NCR's have been evaluated. These NCR's represent beams and colums [ sic] in the Mechanical L
s V
v
-w e
,m.
,y
h i
- s El'ectrical Auxiliary Building. Thirty-one (31) of these components have been installed. The noncon-forma"ces documented are predoninently undersized welds and undercut. While the forty (40) HCR's document' violations of design drawings and/or AWS D1.1 requirements, to date, no safety hazard has been identified relative to these nonconforming weld conditions.
^We shall provide our next report on our ongoing activities on this matter by June 1,1981.
Contrary to the statements in both CCANP's and CEU's Responses, the quoted submission of February 6,1981 gave specific notice of the prob-4 lems concerning vendor fabricated Category 1 structural steel. The
'Intervenors were told that possible welding problems were involved.
It was further stated that a 100% curveillance inspection of welded material would be performed as a result of the problems detected. This report was followed up by an interim report of June 1,1981.E on this subject which stated that tne inspection was continuing and that independent consultants had been called upon to look at the problem. As with the report of February 6,1981, this report was sent to CEU and CCANP.
Indeed, the key poin% not addressed by the Intervenors relative to notice is the fact that the breakdown in the vendor surveillance program was the subject of a i 50.55(e) report. Such reports are only required to be filed when a condition exists. "... which, were it to remain uncor-j rected, could; nave affected adversely the safety of operations of the p
nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of
~
y This report was also attached to the Staff's submission of Septemby 23, 1981, on this motion.
s
+
[
the plant and which represents:
(1) A significant breakdown in any par-tion of the quality assurance program..." 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(e)(1)(1).
Thus, by reporting this matter through the i 50.55(e) process in February, 1981, HL&P put all parties and this Board on notice of just how serious it considered the breakdown in its vendor surveillance program.
Intervenors cannot profit by their own failure to realize the meaning of what they were specifically informed about in the notice of Februory 6, 1981. Late appearing newspaper articles do not provide " good cause" for Intervenors to raise matters they were directly informed of over a half year before new contentions are proposed. Cf. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-444, 6 HRC 760, 796 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1
& 2), ALAS-341, 4 HRC 95 (1976), Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1 2 & 3), ALAB-440, 6 HRC 642, 644 (1977).
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein and in the "HRC Staff Response in Opposition to CEU's Motion to File Additional Contentions," dated September 28, 1981, ths CEU motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, g.
J M. Guti crez Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of November, 1961.
-p e,
,n_
r
?
UNITED STAT 6S OF AftERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of p
i HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER C0ftPAfiY,h Docket Nos. 50-498 g A_L_.
)
50-499 s
(SouthTexasProject. Units 1&2)))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO REPLIES OF CEU AND CCANP" in the above captioned proceedina have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, or, as indi-cated by an asterisk, throuqh deposit in the Nuclear Reculatory Commission's internal nail system, this 13th day of November,1981:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Brian Berwick, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ass 1stant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 Road Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Axelrad & icil 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-46 Executive Director Livermore, CA 94550 Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
Route 1. Ecx 1684 Baker and Botts Brazoria, TX 77442 Une Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Lanny Sinkin Citizens Concerned About William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Nuclear Power Harmon & Weiss 2207 D. Nueces 1725 I Street. H.W.
Austin, TX 7870b Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006
-,-s---
.,--w
-m
2-t Kim Eastman. Cocoordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Barbara A. Miller Panel
- Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Concerned About iluclear Washington, DC 20555 Power 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Antonio, TX 78233 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docke:ing and Servi.e Section*
Washington, DC 20555 t
Office of the Secrete.ry U.S.14aclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, DC 2un50
. Gut ez sel f 4RC St f 1
e w
ee-e-
y- - --
.---c 9m
_y.-.
,.:,.y
-..--_.,_,,_,,,.e,.,9 9_,
y