ML20041E120
| ML20041E120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1982 |
| From: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E119 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8203100163 | |
| Download: ML20041E120 (1) | |
Text
.
i %.:. c.u w -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA March 3, 1982 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ~ ~ -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
'82 ER -8 P3 09 HOUSTON ~ LIGHTING & POWER CO'.
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) p_
6-INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION FOR "BECHTEL POWER COMPANY (BPC)
QUADREX REPORT REVIEW" John F. Doherty, Intervenor, now files the above motion to obtain an Order from the Board directing Applicant to provide a copy of the forth-coming (mid-March) review being conducted by Bechtel Power Company for Applicant to all parties, to be sent to them.
The attached two-page " Meeting Summary" dated Jan. 26, 1982, signed by Donald Sells, NRC project panager for the South Texas N,uclear Project explains the projected task force report.
Intervenor moves for this report because of its pertin-ence to the issue remaining in this hearing.
The report is hiEhly likebto be extremely helpful to the Board and parties in understanding the nature of the Quadrex Report and its significance to the issue of Applicant Technical Qualifi-cations, an issue in these proceedings.
In a telephone conversation with Applicant's Counsel Copeland, he indicated he thought the report would be out later than mid-March, and that he would need a few days to locate information on it.
As the call was placed in the Friday, P.
M.,
this Intervenor decided that in fair-ness to all parties (particularly Staff) the Motion would be most expeditiously handlejby Going out as soon as possi-ble) 1__
=---------
SERVICE OF PROCE35 Copies of the above: INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION FOR "BECETEL POWER COMPANY (BPC) QUADREX REPORT REVIEW, and INTERVENOR DORERTY'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT WITH RE-GARD TO TEXPIRG CONTENTION 31 'ND QU4DREX MATTERS were served on the Parties below, this s (5thlof March 1982.
Sheldon Wolfe, Esq., Gustave A. Linenberger, Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Administrative Judges; Richard Black, Esq. Staff;'
J. Gregory Copeland, Esq., Jack R. Newman, Esq., Applicant; the Several Intervening Parties; NRC Docketing and Service; Atomic Safety Licensing & Appeal Board.
kDO Respectfully, j
j O
O 6
G PDR
/'je m ag%,
UNITen srAYES i
l
}
NUCLE AR REGUL/.lOI.Y COMMISSION
.~
-c
"...c n u m Notos a. 20sss A
3 g,.
f JAN 2 G 1982
~
~
Docket Nos.:
50-498/499 t
APPLICANT:
Houston Lighting and Power Company FACILITY:
South Texas Project
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
On Monday, January 18, 1982 meetings were held with Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P).
The morning meeting was held at the offices of Br'own and Root (B&R).
The afternoon meeting was held in the offices of Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC).
J. Blau spent a few minutes discussing the status of the'B&R effort.
concerning the transmittal 'of information to BPC. B&R is not developing the work packhges, that have been identified in previous meetings, as originally planned.
Instead, B&R is pulling together units of information, i.e., material relating to a single purchase order, material related to.
pipe supports in the containment building, etc.
These are then transmitted and 3PC assembles them into appropriate work packages. The to'tal number of units to be transmitted is about 1400. As of Monday, January 18, 453 have been transmitted. Of these, some 100 plus, were transmitted on the previous' Friday. The bulk of the transfer of information will be accomplished I
over the next two months.
Final transfer is scheduled for April 30, j
1982.
Several bulk transmittals have occurred.
In particular the drawings have been transferred to BPC in a bulk transfer rather than on a piece meal basis. Schedules for the delivery of units of information to BPC were provided in the form of 35 large sheets.
I had an opportunity to look at several of the units that were ready to be sent to BPC. Each package contained a transmittal letter, check lists that indicate the documents included in the package, documents previously supplied (i.e.,
drawings) and documents which still need to be supplied if such is the case, and finally the included documents.
Following the discussion of the B&R transfer schedule, I met with Mr.
White (HL&P,) and Mr. Hurley (BI'C) to briefly review the status of the 87L Ouadrex Renort r ev i ev..
This review is being conducted by an independent l
BPC task force operating principally out of San Francisco. This task force is to provide a report that will address each item contained in 4
the Quadrex Report and disposit ion each it em in one of a number of ~ ways.
Although not clear what these categories will be,'certainly it can be expected that one category will include items that can be eliniinated from further consideration an.1 another would be one that recommends more l
detailed analysis during the transition.vialysis. It now apjears that most of the items will reuuire final dispositionino by the croiect-office _conductinq_the transition analysis, Originally, it was planned 4
to provide an interim report listing tho'.e items that can be eliminated 1
C3 1 c d / /n f
/
-ny vn u.
2-JAN 2 61982 from further consideration with appropriate justification. It now appears that there will be only one report from the BPC task force and that i t Till be midMarch before that report will become available. I was assured that HL&P will not see the report prior to receipt and that upon receipt, copies will be immediately transmitted to the flRC as received.
In the afternoon meeting with BPC the. records mairitained that. reflect rece'pt of informatior) from B&R were reviewed.
The BPC review schedules wo e discussed and provided.
These schedules identify work packages. I was told that there are approximately 160 work packages. The BPC professiona'l engineering staff now stands at about 150 and review of information is initiated as soon as the material is received and has been properly logged and associated with the appropriate work package. Three work packages were reviewed, one a compliance package that covers aspects of a number of the more discipline specific packages, fio' work package is complete either in tenns of all material being available or; obviously, analysis.
I indicated that where Region IV desired Headquarters assistance.
in monitoring the transition activities, flRR was prepared to provide such assistance and that such requests are expected.
I also indicated that fiRR personnel may want to review a complete work package and that I felt such a review should be conducted in Houston and that the package:
would probably be identified in advance of the review. When' asked, I stated that I wobid recommend to my managtment that the assigned reviewers from f1RR have design engineering experience to the maximum extent possible.
Both HL&P and BPC expressed concern that review at this level of detail could cause problems unless the reviewer is familiar with design engineering practices.
In addition a meeting was held in the evening with C. Robertson (HL&Pl.
J. Hurley (BPC) and J. Ghromley (BPC) to discuss transition activities in general.
This meeting was designed to more fully explore and understand the HL&P/BPC interface and the future relationship between the two as well as the impact of this transition on the liccasing process.
/)
(-
.t f /
onald Se M Project flanager Lir msing Branch fio. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See r.nt pa g e.
m,
,-