ML20033B504
| ML20033B504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Eva Hill, John Lamb Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112010476 | |
| Download: ML20033B504 (6) | |
Text
.
'sEIATS C0F22500;.TENCE' c
I II AIDION N WI;lNN DOCKETED U%RC s u.
w
.. >e i r
.n..
G AIL M..e A R MO.e D eg *g g pgg gre yeg, l), ( *, ;.e le ta le.
,u,.e,,.......
y.
e W 14 L E A tt S,.8C9 84 ES A *d. 4 0 8 ser t.nis o
' " of> ' a>U Nove mbo 21, I9hI n
'3 *iGff. y:,6.<,A <
- s. a h L.
Charles Dechhoofer, Esqui re Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/.y $9' %I @// 'k 11.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn Washington, D.C.
20555 b(0 \\
Dr. James C. Lamb, III 3
(\\
g3 g \\9My 4 Administrative eludge g
313 Woodhaven Road Chapel !!ill, North Carolina 27514 P
se Ernest E. Hill b,-
Administrative Judge c,,
p I.awrence f.ivermore Laboratory Post Office Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550
Subject:
llouston Lighting and Power company, et al. (South Texan Project, UniLn 1 and 2), Docket Non. STN 50-498,,50-499 Gentlemen:
Ci t izenn f or l' qui table lit il ities h.in ver y car efully considered how the Board should proceed with the remainder of the expedited phase of this proceeding.
As discussed below, we believe that recent events should a f fect the i)roqress of this hearing in much t.he name way that they have affected t.he progress of construction at the South Texan Project.
We gather t hat our proposa l is connint ent wi t h t he-noard'n concept. of a three-stage hearing.
Before addressing the details of how the hearings should proceed, however, we emphasize that it continuen to be CEU's ponition that thin proicel nhould I.c c.isnplot ed.inel put into operation.
We are pleased hath with the clinminnal of Brown and Foot and with IIL&P's decision to ha 1 t. further conntruction act ivities until both the Utewn and Root design usd the Quadrex Report have been fully analyzed by Hechtel Power Corporation and any necennary correct ionn or improvementn have been made.
We hope that Ihin ropronontn a firm conmitment to quality by Hl.a.P and its cont ractorn, and we will be
()k 0 8112010476 811123' PDR ADtrCK 05000498 G
n 11.mtox & Wi:iss menitoning developmelltn eI(
y ill Iin' cominig monthn te, o
determine whether that is t..
case.
II our concernn are adequately answered, we may have no necil Io coutinue fulI scale participation in t.he hearings.
Iloweve r, that point can be reached only after liht.P demonntraten ita commitment and ability t.hrough actual performapee during itn tranni t. ion work and through complete opennenn and accuracy in its dealings with CEU and the publie.
In the interim, ci:u expects to participate f ully in t.his proceeding.
1.
CEU Position on Further Conduct of the Expedited Proceeding CEU believes that the firing of Hrown and Root and the i
release and implications of the Guadrex Heport rainu cluentionn that must be resolved under Issues A-E and under any appropriate new content. ions as part. of tiie exped i t ed phane of thin pr oceeding.
Since these matters necessarily involve consideration of the substance of the Quadrox Report, t hey nhould not he li tlegatc<l unt.il the llIAP, nechtel, and NRC reviewn of Quadrox have been completed and all parties have had an opportunity for full discovery.
On the basis of est.imatm provided to date, we would expect to resume hearings on these inuuen in the fall of 1982, leading to a Partial Initial Decision on all expedited phase issues by early 19113.
l Meanwhile, we believe that litigation of Contentions 1 and 2 can reasonably be completed in January 1982 nince they relate to specific narrow factual allegations that are not af fected by recent developments.
The Board could make findings of fact on these points.
We emphasine, however, that the Board could not reach any ultimate conclusions on plant nafety or on the character and competence of IILt.P.
We would not object. to consideration of the qualifications of Hechtel ar.J the construction contractor in January, nor would we object to consideration of the QA/QC Program of Bechtel and the l
constructor, if the constructor is a company other than Itochtel.
l Ilowever, we would insist on a discovery period of at least I
thirty days on those issuen, with responne timen establinho<l to allow at least two rounds of siiscovery if needed.
1I Hechte1 in t he conut I tiet on an we!I.in the-.o clei tect/
engineer, we would strenuously object to consideration of I
the OA/OC Program in January.
That arrangement rain <n precisely the name quentions.unt, we leelieve, wou l el re: ail t in precinely the same problemn an dial Ihe-Brown anel Itoot l
arrangement of combining the architect / engineer anel constructor.
I l
l l
~.
e a
llatoloN & WMiss Accordingly, if IIL&P makes such a proponal, we would insist on at. least 90 days for dineoveiy and would expect to take full advant. age of that time to annute that thin innue in fully developed.
II.
Discunnion The heart of CEU's position, particularly an distinguished f rom those of the NitC Staf f and lih&P, in that the full innpl i cat ions of the Quadrex Iteport and the llrown and Itout tiring must be considered in the expedited phane of Iho I n or""el i ny,.not t.ha f,
therefore, this phase cannot be completed before those ma' tern c
_re thoroughly studied.
We will addresa each of the OA/QC issues in this regard.
Innue A.
Leaving aside the specific examplen that are included an subsets of this issue, Issue A stat.en:
If viewed wit.hout r egard to the reme.lial steps taken by IIL&P, would ihe record of IIL&P's compliance with the NitC requi re-monts...be sufficient. t.o determine that IIL&P does not have the necessary managerial competence ut char.ic ten to be granted licenses to operate t.he STP?
Perhaps nothing that we have seen has raised more serious questions about t. hat. lunue l'.:n the Quadrex Iteport.
An detajied in our Motion to Suspend Construction and our Petition to Suspend l
i Construction, since wi thdrawn, - t.he report indicat.cn extensi.ve violations of Nite requirements in the design of t.he pro ject,
including particularly QA/0C requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.
The fact that it was issued some eight years af ter t.he pioject began also indicaten that lil.hP abdicated knowledge of and responsibility for the design of the plant to lirown and Root for ihat period of Iimo, with dirantroun renuits.
Since such abdication wan one of the Comminnion'n major conecrns, this lloard cannot make any findings on the managerial character and competence of IIL&P tintil it han fully examined the extent ot.ind scanonn 10: wl:. :t may wel l be III.hP's most serious abdication of knowledge and responsibility.
Issue _II._
insue 11 involves I he quent ion of winet her nul f icient reme.1i.:I nteps have been taken t o.innue e manaqe iai compe t.cnce and cha r.icter.
Since the ninyle greafent remedial ni op in the firinq of 11rown and Root and their replacement wif h Iho
~
II.uotox & Wi:iss Itechtel power Corporation, it in difficult to imagine anything that is more important to this lunue than a tull explanation of that development, including why it occurred no late in thn l i fe of t he pt oject.
In addit ion, Ihr On.nh e x it. por L may be-considered to be either a remedial step taken by in.&P or a matter that requires remedial stepn.
In eithor can<,
itn impact must be considered in iull before decisionn can be reached on Issue 11 Issue C.,
To a large degree, Isnue C Combinen concerns reflected in Issues A and it, with specifie consideration yiven to IIL&p'n planned organization and the deficiencien in its management of connt rnet ion.
To the extent I h.it it involve th" firnt
- t. wo issues, Tssue C must be connidered with them at lat.or date.
a Similarly, to the ext.ent that it involves alleged deficiencien in HL&P's management, the lloard must be fully aware of IIL&p's involvement in the development of the design that was ultimate-ly severely criticized by Quadrex.
Issue D.
Based on our previous conversations with III.&P and the NRC Staf f, we examined Issue D closely on the assumption that it could possibly be completed in January.
He have concluded that it cannot.
If thin innue extended only to the III.t.P and Brown and Root QA/QC organizations (and even to those of Bechtel and the new constructor), it would involve littic more than organi::ation charts afnl reporting arran'Jements, and it could be closed out soon.
Ilowever, it extends Io QA/QC practicon and to the full neope o f 111.4I:. pr ior performance.
The Quadrex Report and IIL&P'n relationship wi th Itrown and Root have a sistnificant bearing on bot h of I hone pointn.
This becomes particularly clear when one considern that the <1uestion is whether " construction of STP can be impicmented in con-formance with the construetion perimiin and other applicable requirements."
That quent. ion eatinot be annwered wit.hout a t
full evaluation of Quadrex.
Issuo E.
Innue !? cannot be heard in Ihe near iuture los the namo Until Quadrex is answesed and correctionn are made, reason.
we cannot have any idea whether t he nt ruct uren at STP conform to requirements or whether adequat e repairn or replacements are under way.
~
/
ll.\\ It M O N & W 1:l '4 *4 Issue P.
We understand that all partien.aro in agreement. that Issue t' i n premat ure.
In addition to the it.nuen junt dincunned, we understand that CCANP may be filing new contentions based on Quadrex, and we are considering doinq no as well, a'tthough we believe t. hat. evidence concerning all aspects of the Quadrex l' 'po r t is cognizable under the exinting conte ntionn and issues.
Por t.he reasons just. discussed, these contentionn can-not be litigated until all studies of Quadrox have been com-pleted.
In urging the deferral of these major issues until the completion of essential reviews, we recognize that the Board is under a Coimisission mandate to expedite thin phone of t.he hearing.
At the same time, it is clear that the commission could not have foreseen Ihe remarkabin eventn Ihat have occurred in this case and undoubtedly did not intend the Board to reach substantive conclusions on these central issuen of character and competence without considering such signifi-cant developments.
We believe that t he Comminnion necessari-ly intended the Board to have the discretion to proceed with the expedited phase of the hearing as events miqht dictate an long as the issues were resolved at a relatively early stage so that necessary corrective actions--could be taken.
Since const.ruction has now been halted for some six monthn, the Board would be accomplishing precisely that goal by waiting for the essential information before it, proceedn. */
The expedited phase of the hearing would then he concTuded in virtually the same posture as it would have been under the original schedule had the Brown and Root dismisnal and the Quadrex findings not occurred.
We believe the Board would be well within the Commission's mandate. Even if it is not, however, we have rio doubt that the Commission will accept a Board recommendation that incorporates our proposal.
Indeed, we believe that
- uch.us approach is completely consistent with the recent ly exprenned viewn of Chairman Palladino, which we heartily applaud, to t he ef fect that the NRC and the industry must be more careful in implement-ing quality assurance progs ams aiid annuring proper conntr uc-tion in order to restore a high desice of confidence" in t he nafety of nuclear power.
11anhi n.q t on Pont,
at 4.
flovembor 20, 1981, 91hin in lvirticularly the caso ninm w triiew w are eset illewl to a liearinq tefore emntmetion rentm'n.
M' are onniek rino piccimly Ivu ath! khear tlut point should le raised arxl wilI nuke tive appropriate tiling in the near futulu.
,,,,,--g--
e
~
ilAItstON & W4:Iss 1IJ. Witnesses for the January,,Ileqring CI'll does not intend to call any witnennen for the.lanuary 196.' hearing i f 1t is 1imited to the npecilic narrow factua!
issues of Contentions I and 2, as discussed in our position summary.
We are also prepared to connult wi th the NitC Staf f and llLhP to limit cross-examination of the panels that are presented.
We caution, however, that to the, extent that any of the NRC Staff witnesses present testimony to which Quadrox and the Brown and Root dismissal are relevant, we will insist on the right to recall thone witnesnes for cross-examination after those matters are tully developed.
Respectfu11y submitted, a
Will i.im fi. Jor. dan, 11i Connnel for Cl:ll l
1 O
_ _