ML20052H444
| ML20052H444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1982 |
| From: | Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8205210061 | |
| Download: ML20052H444 (8) | |
Text
... -
A*
May 14, 1982
- ^; ;;;
UNITID STATES OF AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.m
.vso p) gg BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
[h..
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
Docket No. $b466CP
( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
INTER 7ENOR DOHERTY'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE DOHERTY MOTION TO ADD CONTENTION 58.
Introduction On April 22, 1982, eight days after the conclusion of a three day hearing in Houston before this Board, this Inter-venor filed a motion to reopen the record to hear evidence on Doherty Contention 58, " Applicant's Conduct on Reporting Viola-at STNP".
Applicaat filed a response dated May 7, 1982 urging denial of the two two-part Contention for various reasons.
A5 of this date, this Intervenor has received no resnonse from Staff.
Amendments to Contention 58 Intervenor below sets forth the Contention in Amended form below:
Contention 58 A Intervenor contends ADplicant has not denonstratedit is able to comply with URO regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50 55(e) and hence should not be granted a construction permit for the proposed ACNGS.
This contention is based on Applicant's failure to report under this regulation several deficiencies found by the Quadrex Corporation in its report on design work by the Brown
& Root Company at the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP), of May,1981. Intervenor asserts that the following deficiences should have been reported under 10 CFR 50. 55(e) (1)(i-iv):
Guadrex Rent.
Descrintion h60g Item #
6 0ll 3.1 (a)
Lack of systems integration
/
8205210061 820514 PDR ADOCK 05000466 O
PDF.
(Contention 58A, an amanded. cont.)
_2-
~
Ouadrex Rent Descriotion Itcm #
3.1 (b)(3)
Inconsistent review of vendor submitted reDorts 3.1 (c)
Lack of thorough and consistent treatment of clant operating modes snd environmental condi-tions 4.3.2.1 (e)
No documentation for defining separation barriers 4 3.2.1 (g)
Lack'of method to assure FSAR commitments go into the design
~4 7.2.1 (a)
Since no modal analysis was done FSAR was in-correct 100FR 50.55(e)(1)(ii):
4.3.2.1 (b)
No top-level document that specifies clant-wide separation requirement.
4 3 2.1 (n)
No document provides guidance on circuit appli-cation of isolation devices 4.5.2.1 (b)
Loads used as basis for plant design unverified or not'rev'iewed 4.6.2.1 (a)
Temnerature value not controlled by designers for equipment design 4.6.2.1 (b)
Insufficient environmental analysis 4.8.2.2 (m)
Different values of essential cooling pond.
initial temperature assumptions were used by Nuclear Analysis and Heavy Civil disciplines 10CFR50.55 (e) (1) (iii):
3.1 (d)(1)
Lack of awareness of high energy piping in the MAD and safety-related classification versus non-safety related 3.1 (d)(5)
Identified support systems and safety related vs non-safety related classification 4.1.2.1 (b)
No evidence of evaluation of reasonableness of postulated internal missiles 4.1.2.1 (c)
Turbine building not analyzed for SSE a.3.2.1 (m)
No methodology to assure all required manual operations may be performed at re=ote shutdown panels
~
1 4 Contention 53A. as amended, cont.)
10 CFR 50.55(e)(1)(iii) cont.:
Cuadrex Rent Descriotion Item p 4.4.2.1(c)
Pocket hydrogen accumulations in containment after LOCA (But not the battery room) 4.6.2.1(b)
Lack of environmental analysis throughout 4.6.2.1(b)
Proble=s with reactor-shield wall pressur, ization analysis 4.8.2;2(k)
No documented basis for locating breathing connections 10 CFR 50.55(e)(1)(iv):
3 1(b)(1)
Input data to technical groups not reviewed for reasonableness prior to use 3.1(e)
No written guidelines for failure mode and effects analysis 3.1(j)(2) page 3-12 AFW pumps not qualified for postulated acci-dent environments 4.1.2.1(f)
Pipe rupture loading may not be adequate 4.3.2.1(h)
No basis or procedure to identify suonort systems needed to assure safety systemcper-,
formance a.3.2.1(j)
Vendors allowed to apply MRC requirements instead of architect engineer a.a.2.1(d)
Separation requirements against common mode failures not identified 4.4.2.2(h)
No consideration of normal open doors and hatches in HVAC calculations l
E.9.2.1(c)
Secondary effects of pipe rupture events have been uninvestigated a.6.2.1(a)
Temperature values for equipment design have not been properly controlled.
4.6.2.1(e)
Use of RELAF3 for annulus cressurization analysis was inappropriate a.6.2.1(j)
Use of double ended pipe break rather than crack break diagrees with FSAR commitment
-)
u-Contention 98A. as amended, cont.)
10 CFR 50.55(e)(1)(iv) cont.1_
Cuadrex Rent Descri otion Item a 4.7.2.1(a)
No modal analysis of pipe whip was done 4,7 2.1(d)
Use of high stiffness for pipe supports gives unconservative results 4.8.2.1(d)
Shielding calculations were not safety related.
4.8.2.1(e)
No correlation of radiation zones to shiel-ding design; Intervenor asserts that failure to report these findings demon-strates inability to comply with NRC regulations, and that this inability would endanger the public and this Intervenor were Aoplicant granted the sought license.
Contention 58B By reporting but three findings from the Quadrex Report under 10 CFR 50.55(e), by May 12, 1981 1/, and failing to report the items listed in Contention 58A (suors.) the Applicant delib-erately urevented the HRC, and the Board and parties in this pro-ceeding from learning the true significance of the Quadrex/STNP, Report's findings, and their implications for judging the Apoli-cant's technical comuetence, and whether the-Applicant can be held to an " extraordinary responsibility for safety". S!
~
Inter-venor therefore contends Anolicant lacks the character to be granted a construction permit for the proposed ACNGS, Intervenor's Ren1v to Anolicant's Resnonse on Contention 58 l
Above, this Intervenor has reclied to Applicant's codection that the Contention lacked specificity. (Applicant's Response, p.4-5, hereinafter: Resoonse)
This has been done by setting out some 37 findings from the Quadrer.'3TNP Report which this Party contends should have been reported under 10 CFR 50 55(e) l by Applicant.
This Intervenor has divided the 37 findings 2! Staff Response to Intervenor Doggett's First Set of Interrog-atories, Item 5, March 24, 1982, p.4.
S! In the Matter of Atlantic Research Corooration, CLI 80-7, March 14, 1980; CCH 30,459, at 29,302.
(
O
-5_
by placing each of the=
under one of the four " represents" catagories in 10 CFR 50 55(e)(1). Any of the Quadrex/STNP findings that did not fit in one of these four catagories was not submitted here.
In acserting this Board should consider this Contention 53, this Intervenor is requesting the record be re-opened as it was in April of this year.
Re-opening is justified for Contention 53, because Contention 58B asserts that Apolicant deliberately concealed and thus prevented this Board from re-ceiving information necessary to the adjudication of the TexPIRG Additional Contention 31, heard in October,1981.
- However, the critical element or factor here in deciding if Contention 53 merits re-opening of the hearings, is not that an Intervening
_ party might have prevailed on TexPIRG Amended Contention 31, but that by its conduct after the report of May, 1981, Applicant has created an issue of its character which is a very important cen-sideration in granting a license because the NRC relies on licensees from much'self-policing.
Thus, Intervenor is saying here that Contention 58 merits admission because if this Intervenor. prevails on the issue the outcome of the proceedin6 is highly likely to be different, that is, the license not granted. While there is, of course, nc decision on the CP for ACNGS, as there was for the cases cited on n. 3 of the Resnonse, this Intervenor believes that the issue is of such gravity that it may reverse an applicant-favoring decision as is anticipated here.
The Motion of which Contention 58 was the major cart I
(hereinafter: Motion) was based on the information provided by I
Staff (See: Motion, Attachment 3), and was provided in a Staff Interrogatory renly to Intervenor Doggett, dated March 2a,1982,
(
and received aporoximately two weeks before the April hearings.
l This urovides the basis for Contention 58B.
An attempt was made to use the document in the April 12 -14, 1982 hearings but failed for lack of relevance to the issues liti' gated there.
This Intervenor asserts that its submission in the Motion is not untimely as suggested by Applicant in its Resnonse, because l
I
- )
- e
. of its late availability as described.
And, even though the " Chronology" in the Motion Attachment 3 agrees greatly with one obtained from Mr. Sinkin (See: this Intervecor's Motion of March 29, '982 for the Board to subpoena Mr. Sells of the URC Staff'where it was attached) who reoresents an Intervenor in the South Texas hearings (50-498), it alone would not have provided sufficient basis for the matter of holding back or otherwise downplaying the Quadrer/STNP Report as alleged in Contention 583.
The Sinkin paper is un-corroborated by an investi ation, unlike the basis for E
Contention SSB,EStaff Memorandum to one of its Commisioners.
While Applicant has asserted (Resnonse,
- p. 2) the need for finality to these proceedings, this is net sufficient balanced against a well based contention that Applicant attempted to downplay or otherwise keep the Cuadrox/STNP from the awareness of this Board and parties.
It would be unseemly for this Board to follow Applicant's suggestion and declare it won't hear this issue because the' Applicant needs a decision too soon for a hearing.
This is because the Apolicant by downplaying the report or concealing it has delayed persons such as this Intervenor from raising the issue in a timely manner.
This Intervenor had no other firm basis than the Staff. chronology on which to base his l
April 22, 1982 Motion.
Any complaints thau this Intarvenor slept on his rights thus are groundless when the facts peculiar l
to this proceeding are examined.
l Singling out Contetnion 58A, for a coment, the issue 1
of not filing findings from the Qaudrex/STNP Report under 10 CFR 50.55(e)(1)(i-iv) to the NRC never had an approuriate l
time in the April hearing, because the Board judged this
" marginally relevsnt" to the April 1982 topics. Contrary to Applicant's implications (Resnonse, p.4) the Board Order of November 10, 1981, did not invite issues'from a broad In that Order, at p. 2-3) the Board recuired this scope.
i Intervenor to specif7 contents of the Quadrex/S1NP Report which indicate that organizational changes ought to be made
f insofar as the ACNGS is concerned and indicate what modif-ications should be made which were not adequately addressed in the October 1981 hearings.
It is facial 17 obvious the Board Order did not countenance an issue of report conceal-ment or other downplaying as in Contention SSB.
It is arguable the Board also did not countenance an issue on recorting of deficiencies, as now. raised in Contention 58A, from that same Order.
At p. 5 and 7 of its Resnonse,Apolicant has made much of a statement by this Intervenor that he doesn't know for a fact that the Quadrex Renort gave problems reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e)(1), (Motion, p. 4). The statement was meant to clarify that there were no new documents or reports which showed that for a fact there were problems other than those reported. The statement was meant to emphasize that there is no factual re-ouirement that the finding meet the standard of 10 CFR 50.55(e),
and hence this Intefvenor, like every one else possessed no special knowledge to make such a decision, and was not asserting such by raising the issue in Contention 58.
With regard to timeliness, the Apolicant has based its belief the filing is untimely on the merits of the Contention itself.
Above, this Intervenor has shown that the issue is intrinsically very significant, particularly in part B, which raises Aoplicant's character to be a licensee into question, based on a recently obtahed NRC memorandum.
It should be pointed out that the Board never ruled that the subject of Centention 583 had no relevance to this case, (Resnonse, p.9) but none to the issues before it in April, 1982.
Eence, the means available for this Intervenor to have protected his in-terests other than through a hearing are not present, contrary to Applicant's claim. (Resconse, p.9) Above, this Intervenor has pointed out why the delay factor (10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(v) should not be significant, in fairness to this Intervenor.
In legal terms, the Apolicant is estopped to raise the delay factor for an issue where it is the source of the delay itself, since it had the only copies of the reocrt for many months when these issues could have been dealt with.
Therefore, with the minor amendments, which soecify what issues this Intervenor believes should have been brought forward from the Quadrex/STNF Report, and clarifies the isoli-
's
-8..
cations of Contention 55B, this Intervenor believes he has replied to all major objections raised by Applicant in its Resoonse.
This Intervenor believes it is aopropriate for this Board to judge the conduct of Applicant in these pro-ceedings even though a different tribunal may be weighing a similar question.in another licensing hearing. Otherwise, this Intervenor will not obtain his full right to inquire into the conduct of Applicant toward the NRC with regard to the Quadrex/STNP report.
R spectfull,
John F. Doherty, Intervenor oro se, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r.
Cocies of the above, "INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE DOHERTY MOTION TO ADD CONTENTION 58" were served on the carties below, via First Class U. S. Postal Service from Houston, Texas, thisgsof May, 1982.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Administrative Judge Gustave A. Linenberger Administrative Judge Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Richard A. Black, Esq.
Staff Counsel Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Applicant Counsel J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Applicant Counsel Docketing & Service Branch USNRC The Several Intervening Parties Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board (ASLAB)
John F. Doherty
.