ML20052D122
| ML20052D122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1982 |
| From: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8205060294 | |
| Download: ML20052D122 (10) | |
Text
!
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA April 29, 1982 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r w.--
- ,ww -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD' In the Matter of:
'82 UM -3 P3 53 HOUSTOH LIGHTING & POWER CO.
(Allens Creek Nuclear Gener-Docket No. 50-466 CP I
ating Station, Unit 1)
I ~ '
.p',
e o>N(2 ISSUES TO TEIPIRG ADDITIONAL CONTENTION - 31 (TECHNIfAL
^
,cpp[h9 INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S FINDINGS OF FACTS ON SUPPLEMENTA Q
QUALIFICATIONS) i p
ne Introduction On April 12 - 14, 1982, the Board in this proceedings.
y held hearings on fifteen issues raised by this Interrenor k -
as a result of the Quadrex Report on the South Texas Nuc-lear Project, a facility under construction for which Appli-cant is the licensee.
The Board also heard testimony from both Staff and Applicant on why the Quadrex Report, since it was prepared and issued in May of 1981,Jad not been
,~
mentioned in the original hearings oETeNPIMr Additional i.
y.
t.
Contention-31, which were held Oc'tjberr,7 - 9,, 1981.
.i Under its discretionary power,'tfe Board appointed this Lntervenor lead party on the supplemental issues, although the issues continue termed TexPIRG Additional Contention - 31 in the fecord.
Findings of Fact on Sunclemental Issues Doherty NN
- 1. Applicant's witness Goldberg, who is Vice-President, Nuc-lear Engineering and Construction, disagreed with Applicant's witness Sas, who is Vice President, Engineering,for Ebasco Services (Sas, Testimony, p.1, following Tr. 21,415) on the meaning of " Spurious operation".(Tr.' 21,665;' Tr. 21,662)
D o3
'5
- 2. Applicant's witness Goldberg is the chief executive and technical person in Applicant's organization, (Applicant's Exhibit 32, at Tr. 21,648) on nuclear matters.
/[
i 1/
~
The letter (in this case "N")is taken from the Doherty Motion of December 7,1981; this procedure employed
% whout.
gy5gCM05000466 294 820429 G
2-3.
Doherty N which specifically cited spurious operation as one of the reliability requirements for equipken'tr that would be absent or not established at the ACNGS, is thus seen to be an issue in which the Applicant and its architect / engineer are not currently in agreement (to that extent),
l 4
Accordingly the Board finds that the Applicant has j
not met its burden of demonstrating what it would do to prevent recurrence of failure to establish re-liability requirements particularly with regard to spurious operation.
I Doherty A 5
Applicant's witness Goldberg testified the Systems Qroup is the or5anization resconsible for there being syscems integration and overview. (Tr. 21,497) 6.
There,are currently no. persons in the Applicant's Systems Group, (Tr. 21,497) 7.
Apolicant's witness Goldberg testified,25We have hired a number of people that we have organized'into a systems
~
c group."(Tr. 21, 496)
.Em
..s 8.
Accordingly the Board finds the record is incomplete with regard to this issue.
Doherty B 9
For consistency in design criteria. Applicant will rely on its Systems group. (Tr. 21,508)
- 10. We are unable to determine if there is a systems group currently for the ACNGS, and request Applicant to com-plete the record on Doherty B, with regard to consis-tency of-design criteria.
Doherty EE
- 11. The systems and proceddres Applicant. will rely upon.
wi'. regard to the ACNGS to prevent its architect?
l engineer there from proceeding in-its work. believing it need only meet NRC regulations, "a..whether ors:not f
those requirements (were) accurate, reasonable, or
[
even (met) the intent of the regulations" are the.same as those it used at the STNP prior to the Quadrez Re-port on STNP. (Tr. 21,625).
I t
12.
Therefore, Applicant has not met its burden to show how it will prevent recurren6e of its architect-engineer treating NRC regulations and requirements in the manner described in the Quadrex Report, as alleged by Intervenor Doherty, in Doherty H.
Other findings encomoassed bytthe Board's Orders of Jan-uary 28,1982, 'and April 8,1982,. which were covered at the Anril 12 - 14, 1982 hearings.
13.
Applicant did not present its prior witness on Tex-PIRG - 31, George Oprea, although he was present in the hearing room on April 12, 1982.
14.
Applicant's witness Goldberg testified that he had no discussions with Mr. Oprea about whether the Quadrex Report (Dohert, Marked for Exhibit 6) in any of its parts was relevant to TexPIRG -31. (Tr.
21,732 - 733) 13 Applicant's-witness Goldberg testified (Tr. 21,732)
-that the "we" in his pre-filed testimony (P. 3,,line 22, Following Tr. 21,424) meant the ' Applicant, '"*
and that he and Mr. Oprea had no' "particular dialogue" whether any of the Quadrex Report on STNP was on relevant to TexPIRG Additional Contention - 31. (Tr.
21,732, in particular lines 9 -15).
16.
There is no testimony that Witness Goldberg spoke for prior witness Oprea in the April 1982 hearings.
- 17. Applicant's testimony as to why its witnesses did not j
mention the Quadrer Report in the October 7 - 9, 1981 hearings on TerPIRG Additional Contention - 31, is entirely that of witness Goldberg. (Tr. 21,733 - 735) 18.
The Board, in the Order portion of its Memorandum m d Order of January 28, 1982, stated it wanted the Applicant's witnesse_s, (vide) to 6fenlain..why they - did not identi fy what was wrong with HL8r.P's.managedent and supervision at STNP that permitted these. safety-related deficiencies cited in the Doherty Motion of December 7, 1981.,
i r
9 4-19 The Applicant, through witness Goldberg attempted to present pre-filed testimony that the Quadrex Report i
highlighted a number of concerns with nuclear engin-l eering at the STNP site. (Applicant's witness Gold-berg,' p. 2, following Tr. 21,424)
'20.
By failing to present Mr. Oprea, Applicant failed
~
to obey the Board's Order of January 28, 1982, as on Page 6 of the Eemorandum and Order. The Board has no explaination as to why this Witness did not appear at the hearings.
21.
Therefore, the record is incomplete with regard to a question raised by this Board, and must be completed I
before-it can rencer a decision on the Construction Permit for the ACKGS.
.I 22.
Applicant imposed a time linit of two months on the r
Quadrex Corp. for doing the report on STNP. (Tr. 21,683)
[
23 Staff's witness Gilray opined the recort was ouestib' able' n
on factualness because it was done hurriedly. (Tr. 22,006) 24.
Since Applicant set.the time limit on Quadrex, any fault in the report due to hurrying rests on Appli-i cant and goes to their ability to'be technically compe-tent., and weight was accorded this fact by the Board.
l i
25 Applicant's witness Goldberg admitted there were problems i
with in-service inspection engineering for the ACNGS i
project. (Tr. 21,711-712)
The problems were lack of program management, lack of program plan and scheduling, j
inadequate staffing, and an unclear and inconsistent interpretation of the scope of access design review due to the absence of a program plan.
f
~
, 26.
Applicant's witness Sas testified he.had firsthand knowledge of the ISI problems, 'emd that a personnel shortage due to urgent work at another nuclear plant made persons "unavilable to conduct the leadership for this effort".(Tr. 21,717) 27.
Apolicant's witness Sas was unaware of how long the ISI problems had been going on. (Tr. 21,718, line 9) and was not certain of the date the problem was corrected.
(Tr. 21,718, line 18 - 21,719) 28.
The Board finds there were problems with In-service in-spection engineering of indeterminate length in the design of the ACNGS.
The record is unclear if the cur-rent design retains in-service inspection deficiencies or that these were removed sometime between 1980 mad the present.
The Board accorded some weight to this finding.
29 Applicant's witness Goldberg te~stified that he started an Engineerig Assurance Division-(EAD) shortly after-his arrival. ( Goldberg pre-filed testimony, p.4,, following..
Tr, 21,424)
Sitness Goldberg further testified EAD will have six engineers, 30.
and.b~e managed by Mr.Prazar, whose only nuclear experience is at STNP and who has no nuclear education.(Tr. 21,791, Tr. 21,440) 31 Mr. Frazar was head of Quality Assurance, as Manager at the STNP, from "...maybe'78 or '79 through early 1982",.and that program was characterized by Applicort.'s: witness Goldberg as "In need of improvement". (Tr. 21,792) 32.
The EAD.was cited by witness Goldberg :as backirg up the usual Project Engineering Team in case that group misses I
an activity of substance. (Tr. 21,494) i j
33.
The Board finds that the EAD while.appe'aring to be a pos-l sible method of preventing many problems missed by a prospective ACNGS project engineering team, may be made
{
less than effective by inexperienced management.
Accord-i ingli, the' board ~ pla'cet'11ttle"c'onfi'de' neein the' EAD to! '
~
~
l assiht'in problem ~s lEsted'in the Doherty Itehs U to 0.
\\
c
- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
-s_
34.
Applicant's witness Goldberg testified he did not men-tion the Quadrex STNP Report at the hearings of October 7-8, 1981, because "we did not consider the report to be relevant to our prior testimony." (Applicant witness Goldberg, p. 3, following Tr. 21,424)
Mr. Goldberg was spokesman for the company. (Tr. 21,734) 35 No one at HL&P attempted to determine whether or not thdre was any relationship between TerPIRG-31 and the Quadrez STNP Report. prior to the October, 1981 hearings (Tr. 21,552) 36.
Therefore, by its own admission, Applicant's failure to mention the Quadrex STNP Report at the October 7
-8, 1981 hearings was not based on a determination.there was no relevance between TexPIRG Additional Contention - 31, and the Quadrer STNP report items in the Doher:y,.Decem-ber 7,1981 Motion, because to establish relevance betxeen two.ritems an inquiry into the relationship between the two items is required.
]
37 The Quadrex STNP Report was given WRAP in May cf 19sr>
38.
Applicant bears the full ultimate responsibility of making sure architect-engineers and other contractors perform work properly in nuclear power plant ecastruc-tion. ( Applicant's witness Goldberg, Tr. 21,535) 39.
Doherty Item K from the Motion of December 7, '981, was taken from Section 3-1-(f) of the Quadrex STNP Report, at p. 3-7, and asserted, "...there was no procedure at STNP for assuring FSAR commitments were being implemen-ted in the design", and TexPIRG Additional Contention
-31, part C, asserted that,
"...the Applicant deviated in at least three instances from the PSAR...all of which related to quality assurance...".
40.
Applicant's witness Goldberg admitted there was a sim-ilar thread between TexPirg Additional Contention - 31, part C, and Doherty Item K. (Tr. 21,554, line 7), but had maintained'that lack of experience by the contractor
~
was definitely the reason for these failures and hence the-Quadrer: STNP : Report: item : referenced in Doherty' Item K was not relevant tb TexPIRG_31)part C. (Tr. 21,551]
20)
In the October 7-8, 1981 hearings, however, Mr. Goldber$did not indicate lack.of experience was the reason for failures to f'ollow the PSAR as alleged in TexPIRG Additional Contention 31, part C. (Tr. 18,261-18,267) 41.
Applicant's witness Goldber6 stated that Doherty Item C from the Motion of December 7,1981,. (taken from Section 3-1-(b) of the Quadrex STNP Report, at p. 3-3) which alleges that four engineering disciplines of Apolicant's architect-engineer at the STNP site did not consistently review input data for reasonableness.
prior to use, could have been the cause of the materials need underestimation alleged in TexPIRG Additional Con-tention 31, part B, by coincidence. (Tr. 21,542 line 10) 42.
Witness Goldberg implied that the' Doherty Item C problem could have been part of a " common thread" (Tr. 21,543 line 15) of lack of experience and hence not relevan),
to the assertion of TexPIRG 31 C.
However, in the October,1981 hearings, neither this witness nor Mr.
Oprea of Applicant mentioned that inexperience was the cadse of'the3TexPIRG 311parMC. problem. (Ti. 18,247-255) j 43.
Doherty Item H (taken from Section 3-1-(d) of the Quad-rer STNP Report, p.
3-6) stated, "... Applicant's architect-engineer for the STNP proceeded in its work with the belief it need only meet NRC regulations,
...whether or not those requirements are accurate, reasonable, or even meet the intent of the regulations,A and there was no planned effort to review new NRC requirements",
and TexPIRG 31, part B, alleged that a 1978 internal study by the Applicant had shown Applicant had greatly underestimated materials requirements for the STNP.
Applicant's witness Goldberg testified lack of experience probably prevented the then architect-engineer at STNP m
A from challengin6 new NRC regulations. (Tr. 2t,5M) This-was meant tto+: explaina why there was no relevance between the Quadrez.Section 3-1-(d)oasserted in Doherty Item H and TexPIRG Additional Contention - 31, part B, and to excuse Applicant from mentioning the Quadrex STNP Report finding in the October 7-8, 1981 portion of the hearings because it was not relevant.
M.
Accordin5 to its testimony Applicant deemed three Quadrex
" Generic Findings" irrelevan [to parts B and C of iexPIRG Additional Contention - 31, at some time prior to the October 7 - 8, 1981 hearings.
By doing this, Appli-cant evidently removed all necessity to mention the Quadrex STNP Report in these proceedings.
In each of the three instances where it made its relevancy deci-sion, the factor of inexperience on the part of Applicant or its contractor could explain the TexPIRG cited prob-lem.
Yet, the Board finds that although the Applicant admitted TexPIRG Additional Contention 31 parts B anL C were true, the Applicant's witnesses in the October 7 - S, 1981 hearings did not testify the problems were caused by inexperience.
'q, The Board finds that by not havin5 Mr. Oprea testify, and by applying a principle that so long as any of the TexPIRG Additional Contention -31 assertions could be explained by some other mechanisms than those in l
the Doherty Motion of December 7, 1981, *bich put forth most of the Quadrex STNP Report " Generic Findings",
Applicant entirely avoided presentinE testinony about i
the Quadrex STNP Report at the October 7-8, 1981, por-tion of the ACNGS hearings, and obstructed the progress
(,
of this licensing Board toward its duties under the j
Atomic Energy Act, and Commission Regulations.
l f
_9_
%s, The record shows that by these acts,of omission.and commission before this licensing Board, the Applicant does not appreciate the high standard of conduct required by a licensee of the Commission.
This is particularly so, where less than two years before (May 9,1980 to October 7, 1981) Applicant had received an Order to l
Show Cause why safety related activities at the STNP should not be halted. (Doherty Exhibit 4, p. 30,755)
This Order came from the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
While Applicant appears to have hired new personnel with experience, two of its highest.ran-i king executives 'participatsd in an. attempt in-7' 8., 9981 hearings,.'to not mension'a the" October major recort on its STNP by applying the thinnest possible standard of " relevance".
47.,
Technical competence and technical qualifications are inextricably bound to standards of proper con-duct and character of those whose technical competence and technical qualifications fall under scrutiny.
I,f The Board finds the factors of proper conduct and
- A character are lacking to such a great degree in the Auplicant before us that it cannot grant a con-struction permit for the proposed ACNGS.
1 Respectfully, dh John F. Doherty, J. D.
i
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'82 l;gy '
I certify that copies of INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S FIhD1SDs8 OF FACTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES TO TEIPIRG AD.D.ITIONAL CON-TENTION - 31 (TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS) were served',bulthe part es below via First Class U. S. Postal Service, this M
_of April, 1982 from Houston, Texas.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Administrative Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Jr.
Administrative Judge Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Richard A. Black, Esc.
J. Gregory Copeland 7
Staff Counsel Jack R. Newman, Esq., Esq.2 Applicant Counsel Applicant Counsel The Several Intervening Parties Docketing & Service Branch U. S. N. R. C.
Atomic Safety Licensing and.
Appeal Board (ASLAB)
U. S. N. R. C.
Respectfully, b
i u
7 John F. Doherty, J.D.
/ Mr. Copeland was served at the offices of Baker-Botts, l
2 3000 One Shell Plazg, Houston, Tx., by hand delivery 30, 1982.
[
on April l
.1 i
hii P
E e
W