ML20033A995
| ML20033A995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Eva Hill, John Lamb Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111300262 | |
| Download: ML20033A995 (4) | |
Text
\\
n i
r i=
x n
,g 4
4 y
g.
g.
y p
Distribution:
Gutierrez/Perlis Reis/Lessy Shapar/Engelhardt November 23, 1981 Christenbury/Scinto Olmstead OELD Formal Files (2)
Charles Bechhoefer. Esq., Chairman Dr. Janes C. Lamb IIIchron Files (2)
Adninistrative Judge Administrative Judge NRC Docket Files:PDR/LPDR Atonic Safety and Licensing Board 31pHoodhavenRoad U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission ChhpelHill,NorthCarol[naFMi algia /DSells 27514 Washington, D.C.
20555
!!r. Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge IIll/jbx Lawrence Livemore Laboratory o
//
University of California P.,I l}
r' A. I[:.7) 'A}
P.O. Box 808, L-46 g
Livernore, California 94550 NOV2 71981 h@
v
\\.A u.u g ;i g o" In the Patter of H00ST0ftLIGHTINGANDPOWERCOM A
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2T Docket flos. 50-498 and 50-499
Dear Administrative Judges:
This letter is filed by the Staff in response to a Board order of October 8,1981L, in which all parties were requested to file a written status report on or before flovenber 23, 1981, relative to the future conduct of the expedited phase of this operating license proceeding. At the time of this order, it was hoped that all parties would file a report in the fom of a joint reconnendation. However, the parties after several nectings were unable to draft a letter all could agree upon in toto; therefore, the Staff herewith subnits its position on how best to proceed.
Two recent developments have called into question the wisdon of cont.nuing with the expedited hearings as originally conceived. These two events are the renoval of Brown and Root from the South Texas Project and the Quadrex.Repc t.
It would appear that all parties are in agreenent that this Board nust consider the affect of the Quadrcx Report and the new organizational arrangenent between the Applicants (HL&P),
their architect-engineer and constructor. All parties could not, however, agree upon the extent and tining of such testimony.
It is the position of the Staff that Contentions 1 and 2, as well as, Board Issues A, B, C and E can and should be decided as originally drafted during the expedited phase. This position assunes the Applicants' testinony will be supplenented as described below.
In DS07 e,6
...'j.
p d 4 8 R
- J afa g.......
-+
Om>
.l...............
"*o 'seo-329 824 O FFICI AL R ECOR D COPY NRWW 318 (10,80) NRCM O240
. addition, Board Issue D could be decided during the expedited phase if re-craf ted, as follows:
ISSUE D In light of HL&P's prior perfomance in the construction of the STP as reflected, in part, in the Hotice of Violation and Order to Show Cause dated April 30, 1980, and HL&P's responses thereto (filings of flay 23, 1980, and July 28,1980),and actions taken pursuant thereto, do the current HL&P
[and], Brown & Root (B&R), Bechtel an_d, construction contractor (if otner than Bechtel) construction QA/QC organizations and practices meet the requirenents of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B; and is there reasonable assurance that they will be icpleuented so that construction of STP can be coapleted in confomance with the construction pemits and other applicable requirenents?
(Hote:
underlined sections indicate additions and brackets indicate deletions froa Issue D as triginally draf ted).
With respect to Issue F (Applicants' QA/QC progran for operations), in lisht of the fact the recent developnents will further delay the cocpletion date of the project, the Staff feels more meaningful findings and conclusions could be written if taking evidence on this issue is deferred until the full operating license hearing.
4 The above contentions and issues can be decided during this phase of the operating license proceeding for varying reasons. Contentions 1 and 2, as well as Board Issue A, look to past actions of the Applicants and thus the two recent developaents have no effect on the Coard's ability to rule on tnese natters. Board Issues B, C and D look to such things as past i
nanagement organization, construction perfomance and prior QA/QC
(
deficiencies and ask, in light of renedial action, is there now reasonable assurance the plant will be constructed in accordance with i
applicabla requirenents and eventually will be safely operated. Thus, assuming upon further evaluation' of the Quadrex Report serious flaws are confirred, this Board can still decide Board Issies B, C, and D because j
these issues ask only whether there is reasonable assurance the i
Applicants have in place mechanisms to catch such flaws.
Fron this i
perspective, tne Quadrex Report itself may be viewed as renedial action following the show cause order. Similarly, Board Issue E~ asks if there is reasonable assurance tue structures now in place are in confomity with applicable requirecents, and if not, whether liL&P has taken steps to assure such structures are repaired. Assuriing a structure is not in cmpliance with applicable codes, this issue asks Wther llL&P has taken ng tu e src it cill c=f as a m det: i.. t?
%n., i; Jad;.
orncep SURN Auf )
o4re >
~~
Nac ronu sis oo.m uncu cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam mi_.333.=
l
,r
,e r
..m
.,w
,i
,.7
,, require this Board to nake a positive finding that all structures are currently in compliance.
In order to decide the issues.as outlined above, the Applicants must supplement their prefiled testinony by subnitting (1) evidence on their revised QA/QC program for the balance of construction, (2) the functional relationships between liL&P, Bechtel and the constructor and (3) Bechtel's 4
qualifications to perfom architect-engineering and construction management services. Of course, when named, the constructor's qualifications should supplement the r2 cord. Althcugh Issue F need not be decided, the Applicants should nonetheless present their general plans for overall management during operations in order for a finding to be made relative to Issue C.
For its part, the Staff should present the first three panels outlining the inspection and enforcement history of the South Texas Project and update the last of these panels to include inspection activity through the first of the year.
In addition, the testinony of John Gilray should be amended to reflect any changes in the App'icants' QA/QC progran for the balance of construction. The testimony of Jack Sprauls on the QA/QC' program for operations should be deferred until Issue F is specifically addressed at the full operating license proceeding.
In contrast, the general testimony of Lawrence Crocker and Frederick Allensnack on manage-ment for operations should be presented.
With the recond supplement ~1 as outlined above, all issues except for F can be decided within the u ntext of the expedited hearing as directed by the Commission's September 22,1980, order.
It remains for this Board to decide how best to address the findings of the Quadrex Report in this operating license proceeding (i.e., in the expedited or full operating license hearing).
It is the position of the Staff that only after liL&P, through Bechtel, has evaluated the Quadrex findings, corrective reasures are proposed and inplemented and the Staff has reviewed those actions can it be determined if there are new meaningful contentions to be litigated. As indicated by the Applicants, such work could not be completed in the near future. The Staff would, therefore, counsel this Board to defer incorporating any Quadrex concerns in new contentions until the above process runs its course.
Consequently, it is felt that any substantive aspects of the Quadrca Report can best be litigated in the context of the full, in centrast to the expedited, operating license proceeding (0
Jay M. Gutierrez Counsel for NRC Staff
'"C4.. M..Y.3... 9.f.9.g'Q.........
su=~m) 6,f,<,[;f,y,e ?,g,4,f,g,,f,,,,
=>.(.(.9:.R/.. &M.:.2.7.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
. - =-329 2.
NRC FORM 318 IO,80l NRCM O240
n 4h.
4
-Q 4':
q,,
4"; >
air-sg
%Y
' cc: Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Mr. Lanny Sinkin Kim Eastman Barbara A. Miller Pat Coy Docketino and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board OFFICE k sus m o) oc ronu 3 e no,eo: sscu c2do OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- " ' #" 32 " 2 '