ML20032D993
| ML20032D993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1981 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111190468 | |
| Download: ML20032D993 (11) | |
Text
r 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00LgKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFD1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 11 OCT 27 P2:56 In the Matter of
(
)
0FFICE OF SECPETAPJ IlOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO.
(
Docket $ gi
{fgh
( South Texa s Project, Units 1
)
fD-4*99 and 2)
(
yy
[.
CCANP RESPONSE TO APFLICANT AND STAFF f
I g
OPPOSITIONS TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS gg s
3 gg 3
In its Order (Further Filings ConcerningPropo(fd
/
q Contentions), dated October 9, 1981, the Board provibA
'A j&
/
UCANP the opportunity to file a.:ritten response to-t g
ul positions taken by the Applicants (App) and the Sta ff (Sta ff) in oppos'itE n to the new contentions filed by CEU on Setpember 10, t981 CCANP, as co-sponsor of the new contentions, herewith files its response taking note of the related letter sent to the Board and all parties.on September 21, 1981 in which CCANP responded to a series of questions asked by the Board regarding these new con-tentions.
I. Timeliness ( 10 CFR Section 2. 714(a )(1)(i))
Applicants argue t'.ia t the motion for new contentions is not timely filed. The measure of timeliness is not when an event happened but rather when the filing party had adequate notice of the event to be in a position to decide
)
whether to move for new contentions.
Applicants claim that their written report to the NRC on February 6, 1981 is the starting point for measuring
/'
4 4
0A*A8M*offgg 0 S" \\
e PDR
ti.eliness. (App at
- p. 2) A careful e xamina tion of 'this -
document argues to the contrary.
The February report mentions forty (40)-NCR's and thirty-(31) components installed. (App., Attachment 2) The August, one 198 newspaper accounts quote HL&P sources a s saying hundreds of NCR's were written on 8,000 steel beams and nearly half-of the beams were already installed when the defective welding was discovered.
Applicants also note the June 1,
1981 report to the NRC.
(App., Attachment 3) This report mentions nonconformance reports but gives no total written and says nothing about ins talled components.
Thus, from the February and June reports, intervenors had no notice of the magnitude of the problem or the possibility of a serious breakdown in-the vendor surveillance and on site inspection programs. (New Contentions 1,
2, 3, 4, and 8) While the NRC had additional notice through the involvement of the resident reactor inspector, intervenors do not have on site representatives and must depend on documents such as the February and June
'eports.
r 1
Contention 6 raises a matter which is in no way documented in the Applicant reports. Changing the welding inspection procedures in the midst of a major discovery of defects raises serious questions about the integrity of the inspection process and the commitment of the Applicants to code compliance.
Contention 5 raises the question whether the February and June reports actually satisfy 50 55(e) requirements. CCANP 4
_3_
does not intend to withdraw Contention 5. CCANP contends that there is a serious question o f Applicants willingness to comply with the requirements of 50 55(e). According to 50 55(e), the reports must provide " sufficient information to permit analysis and evalua tion of the de ficiency. " The paucity of information provided in both the February and June filings do not meet the NRC requirements. Additionally, there is the question of timeliness in reporting the welding defects. Purther discovery is necessary on this point before this question can be resolved.
The Staff also argues that the February and June-reports c ons titute a dequ,a te_ no tice. CCANP contends that an NRC official, in Arlington would have no more reason to suspect a major problem based on these reports than did Intervenors. To' accept the NRC position would be to undermine the requirements of 50 55(e).
The Sta ff additionally a rgues that Item 51 Appendix C-of the prefiled testimony of William A.
Crossman, et. al.
provided notice to Intervenors. Thi s item in its entirety states" " Structural steel welds deviate from AWS code requirements (American Bridge) O /08/81." Other than providing the name of the vendor omitted in both Applicant reports, this item adds nothing from which to argue notice.
Sta ff a rgues that CEU could have raised the American Bridge concerns with Applicant witnesses presented during the licensing proceedings to date. ( Staff a t p.
- 10) CCANP contends that the two reports and the NRC prefiled item
-m-
,,w-,,
-n w
,--e-
k-in no way indica ted a problem worth raising during the licensing proceedings.
The proposition that Intervenors had adequate notice prior to August, 1981 to enable them to propose new contentions, conduct discovery, or cross examine witnesses is not supported by the documentary history of this event. The filing by CEU was timely in relation to the period when Intervenors had adequate notice.
II. Other means to protect interest (10 CFR Section 2 714(a)(1)(ii))
The Applicants argue that the concerns of Intervenors will be addressed by the Applicants pursuant to 50 55(e) with NRC review and tha t In+ervenor dissa tisfa ction with the 're solution can be asserted at e later date. (App. at 4) The Staff takes similar position with the added admonition tha t the current a
. proceedings are a special, expedited process not to be delayed unnecessarily. (Staff a t 11)
Both parties _miss the point. The essential reason for most
-of the new contentions is to raise the question of the adequacy of the QA/QC program at the South Texas Nuclear Project. In particular, Intervenors will argue the implications of QA/QC breakdowns for the managerial character and technical competence of the Applicants.
Certainly, CCANP is concerned that all unacceptable welds be corrected. (Contention 7) But CCANP is moderately confident that the resident reactor inspector assisted by Region IV NRC will see to it that welds found to be defective or not adequate will be repaired. Only time will tell, however.
e
-5 The major thrust of the new contentions is the failure to establish and implement an acceptable quality control program.
This concern will not be dealt with in the 50 55(e) inspection and repair of welds. This fa ilure is a central issue in assessing the character and competence of the Applicants.
III. Development of a sound record (10 CFR Section 2 714(a)(1)(iii)
The third factor in deciding whether a new contention is r
accepted is the extent to which Intervenors' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
Applicants' position is that Intervenors have not filed any material indica ting an ability to contribute to develop ~
ment of a sound record. Yet CCANp is certain that until CEU's filing, there was little likelihood the record in these proceedings would have contained what appears to be a serious failing on the part of the Applicant. A further contribution by Intervenors can be expected if the Board grants Intervenors ' request for discovery.
The Sta ff position on this fa c tor is separated into two arguments. First, the staff says contentions (1) through (4) do not supply sufficient detail to put the parties on notice as to wha t Intervenors' concerns are apart from American Bridge. In CEU's response to this objection, CEU suggests (1) through (4) could be limited to American Bridge. (CEU at p.
- 7) CCANp would agree to this limita tion.
CEU further contends that Contention 8 should remain broad "because the failure of vendor surveillance in the M
- crucial area of sa fety rela ted structural steel gives rise to the reasonable presumption that simila r failures hav e occurred in other areas." (CEU at p.
- 8) In retrospect, the CEU a rgument for a broad contention must be seen a s correct.
Shortly a f ter CEU filed its response. Intervenors received the Quadrex Report. Thnt report contains findings directly related to the issue raised in Contention 8.
For example, Quadrex'found:
"B&R review of vendor submitted reports is not consistent, sometimes they are very well done, and at other times they are poorly done (3-3)
"No do ctment ed criteria. exists governing the evalua tion process for vendor reports." (3-3)
" Brown and Root continues to pursue a policy.
tha t work performed by ma jor subcontractors or suppliers is design verified by these firms 3
and can therefore be assumed to be correct." (3-3, "There is no evidence that analysis methods chosen by these suppliers are reviewed for acceptability and consistency." (3-3)
"(N)o evidence wa s obtained that B&R is checking and approving analysis methods selected by Westinghouse." (3-3)
" Brown and Root does not provide adequate guidance to vendors stipulating acceptable analysis and testing methods, required data, and report format." (3-4)
"(E)xamples of inadequate analysis methods approved by B&R have been observed." (3-4)
These findings are remarkably similar to findings that co"ld be made regarding the American Bridge events and support CEU's proposition that vendor surveillance problems are systematic.
In addition, Applicants state that "The steel is not subject to reinspection a t the site absent some indication
o f a problem. " (app. 6t p.
10)'The odoquacy of the 1A/QC program is called into question if such a program does not provide for Category I, sa fety rela ted items to lue reinspected when delivered to the site by a vendor.
Staff then argues that Contentions (6) through (8) can be resolved through the 50 55(e) process. Again, 50 55(e) is a corrective action process, not b " root cause" -process.
C e r ta inly, the 50 55(e) process does not address the issues 1
raised above in the discussion of Contention 8.
Contention 6 the attempt to change inspection procedures is a past event in the midst of a major revelation of problems in order to minimize the revelations, not the problems. Applicants contend strikes)... do not that " cosmetic dev a tions (such as arc affect the adequacy of the steel for its intended ourposes."
(App., Attachment 1,
p.
- 3) CCANP does not agree with this a ssumption and centends that the changes in the inspection procedures were not a ppropria te. This appropria teness can be evalua ted now without waiting for final action on repairing welds. The methodology for evalua ting beams with inaccessible welds can also be evaluated at this time.
IV. Broaden the issues or delay the proceedings (10 CFR Section 2.714(a)(1)(iv))
Applicants position is tha t the new contentions are outside the scope of the proceedings and would substantially delay the proceedings.
In mh$ng their argunent for excessive broadening o r the issues, Applicants note the Memorandum and Order of the Commission, CLI-80-32, and conclude that the newspaper
- articles submitted by CEU "do not allege abdication of knowledge or responsibility by HL&P, nor do they allege any other facts which might lead a Licensing Ba ord (sic) to conclude-tha t HL&P la cks the resolve or ability to comply with NRC requirements during Plant operation." (App.
at.p.
9)
CCANP has a different view. While the newspapers did not
" allege" anything, the contentions do. The contention s allege that the Brown and Root QA/QC program wa s deficient and.that HL&P did not know that fact or knowing that fa c t failed to ta ke adequate action to correct the deficiencies. Such an allegation clearly falls within the scope of CLI-80-32.
Applicants admit that over 95 percent of the steel was delivered before April, 1980. (App. at 10) The first report of defects to the NRC was in January, 1981, eight months a f ts-
.the delivery of 95 percent o f the steel. Applicants told the newspapers that nearly half the steel wa s installed before the welding inadequacies were detected. Surely a prima facie case for the relevancy o r these contentions to the QA/QC issue and the technical competency issue is found in Applicants' own representations.
promkly on As to delay, CCANP urges the Board to rule admission of the contentions and schedule discovery. CEU submitted a first set of interroga tories with its motion, so Intervenors have worked to minimize delay.
At the same time, CCANP is concerned that the Commission mandate to hold " expedited" hearings is being treated more for its form than its substance. To treat the mandate as
_9_
meaning solely a rapid process is to ignore the underlying protection of public health and reason for the mandate sa f e ty. The Commission endorsed the Board's proposal for early hearing because the issues raised by Intervenors were sufficiently serious to require resolution before the customary hearing date. This resolution wa s necessary to a ssure the further construction of the plant did not take place under
~
conditions detrimental to the sa fety of the plant. Surely a major failure in vendor surveillance or engineering or any e
other crudial area of the work ra ise s the same underlying concern and deserves the same early treatment. While the Applicants recently suggested these proceedings could conclude in March, 1982 and CCANP agreed to try to a chieve that timetable, CCANP
~
finds no magic in rushing to judgment just to finish. The central task is for this Board to be assured tha t all major areas of endeavor affecting the quality of this plant are carried out in the required manner. The Commission surely did not mean for evidence material to the managerial character and technical competence of the Applicants to be excluded based on some overly narrow reading of _" expedited".
Finally, CCANP notes tha t all delay in these proceedings since July, 1981 is a result of Applicants having to rid themselves of an incompetent architect-engineer and Applicants reluctance to deal similarly with an incoupetent constructor and quality control orga niza tion.
V.
Conclusior.
CCANP contends tha t all the new contentions are timely, necessarily before the Board to protect Intervenors' interests, O
provide Intervenors an' opportunity to make a substantive contribution to ~ the record, and clearly belong in the expedited pr oceedings.
Respectfully submitted, Lannh Alan.Sinkin 2207 D Nueces Austin, Texas 78705 (512) 478-3290 Pro Se Counsel for CCAIIP Dated' October 23, 1981
~
O f
p 9w-.g--m.v~-
--.,,*=~-rwe, y
+at=+~,%-*
e
-e e,-w
--w
--- - - -* - - = ~ * - '- ~ = ~ - - - - - ' ---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- ^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LTCENSINC EOARD In the Matter of
(
DOLKETEC USAC
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND PUWER CO.
(
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 1H OG 27 P256 PD f0C SECR TA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
BRANCH I hereby certify tha t CCANP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT AND STAFF OPPOSITIONS TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS was mailed first class, postage paid on this 23rd day of October, 1981 to:
Charles Dechhoeffer, E squire Atomic Safety and Chairman Licensing Appeal Board U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
NRC Wa shington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Atomic Safety and 313 Woodhaven Road Licensing Board Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.
S.
NRC
' ~~
Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Erne st ill ?.1 Lawrence Livermore Labora tory Docketing and Service University of California Section P.
O.
Box 808, L.123 Office of the Secretary Livermore California 94550 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.
20555 Jack Newman, Esquire Lowenstein, Axelrad, et al 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.V.
Washington, D.C.
20036 hjhl% Jc vA Brian Berwick, Esq.
h4v' mea
'55 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Pro tection 171 7 ][ EN#' j g/* b),
)g g,C, 2,000I Division P.
O.
Box 12545, Capitol Station L
I Austin, Texas 78711 Pat Coy 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 78223 Jay Gutierrez, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.
S.
Nuclear Regula tory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
,/
W Lanny[Sinkin
.