ML20062M644

Response Opposing Doherty 811015 Renewed Motion for Addl Evidence on Tx Pirg Contention 31.Doherty Failed to Comply W/Aslb 811110 Order.Motion Is W/O Merit & Would Cause Unnecessary Delay.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20062M644
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/14/1981
From:	Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8112170382
Download: ML20062M644 (9)

Text

.

e b

c.

000KETED' December 14, 1981 USNRC

'81 DEC 15 A8:49

~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORYTCOMMISSION a: sd & suiv:e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAkETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. .

5 50,446mg'Q (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S

, /s Station, Unit No. 1) S f -

'h\

/yb $[J.

. i .,

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DOHERTY'S~ '#

RENEWED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL j; DEC161981> c jf EVIDENCE ON TEXPIRG CONTENTION 31 8

/

.- 4 p On October 15, 1981, Mr. Doherty filed a motiv..

requesting that the Applicant-and Staff submit additional testimony on TexPirg Additional Contention 31, in light of a report on the South Texas Project submitted'to'the' Applicant by the Quadrex Corporation in May, 1981. The Licensing Board denied Mr. Doherty's motion, but without prejudice to his re-filing it after reviewing the Quadrex Report itself. (Board Order dated November 10, 1981). If af ter reviewing the O'.tadrex Report, Mr. Doherty still desired to request additional informa-tion, he was directed to specify:

L those portions of the Quadrex report which indicate that organizational changes (which were either not previously adverted to or were inadequately addressed in testimony in this case) ought to be-made-insofar as the Allens Creek facility is concerned and/or-indicate that modifications (which were either not previously adverted to or were inadequately addressed in testimony in this case) ought to;be made. in the ' supervision

", -of the ACNGS construction.

[' ,

8112170382 8112I4 f$ b PDR ADOCK 05000466 o PDR Q 6' g %

. s- .y - y - +=y

'(Board Order at 2-3 (emphasis added)). He was further in-structed to cite those portions of-the testimony which he deemed inadequate and to state why they are inadequate. Mr.

Doherty has not complied'with the Board's Order. He has not shown that-the'Quadrex findings itemized in his motion (even

~

if valid) bear any relation to the design and construction of Allens Creek or that there is any reason for believing that they will recur at this project. Mr. Doherty's motion is without merit, would cause a. needless delay in the proceeding, and should be denied.

77,'

The crux of the Licensing Board's direction to Mr.

Doherty in its November 10 Order was that he demonstrate how pat.icular matters addressed in the Quadrex Report show that the Applicant's intended organization and procedures for the Allens Creek project must be changed. Mr. Doherty has made no showing whatsoever that the practices which are the sub-ject of his motion bear any relation to the qualifications and engineering practices of Houston Lighting & Power Company, Ebasco or General Electric with respect to the design and l_ construction of the ACNGS. Chapter 3 of the Quadrex Report, l-from which Mr. Doherty has taken every one of his alleged

" issues", consists solely of a summary of design and engineer-i ing practices employed by the Brown & Root Company at the i

l South Texas Project. The opening summary paragraph.of that l

l chapter states that its purpose is to present findings "for I

l l-

4 the various B&R [ Brown & Root] technical disciplines examined by this design' review' program" (Quadrex Report S 3.0, p. 3-1).

In'each paragraph of-his motion,.Mr. Doherty argues either that.the witnesses did not go into enough detail about problems raised by the Quadrex Report-(sub' parts A, B, C, D, E) or that-they did not specifically address the U

Quadrex Report (e . g . subparts F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, 0).

The fact is that TexPirg's contention did not raise any issue about the Qusdrex Report so the witnesses for Applicant and Staff had no reason-t: iddress it. Moreover, Mr. Doherty-has not shown how the Quadrex Report relates in any way to the specific allegations in TexPirg's contention. Mr. Doherty argues as to each of the points in his motion that Applicant should be required to show why further changes are not. required because of the Quadrex Report. However, the Board put the burden on Mr. Doherty to show wherein the Quadrex Report indicates that changes need to be made in the organization of the Allens Creek project or in the supervision of construction of that project. He has totally failed to meet that burden, and the burden should not now be shifted to Applicant.

1/ .Mr. Doherty has also mischaracterized what is in the

Quadrex Report. Paragraphs C, E, F, G, and O, of his motion allege that Quadrex indicated that there were failures in the Applicant's monitoring of activities by its architect-engineer at the South Texas Project. There is nothing in the cited portions of Quadrex (or anywhere else in that Report) which

! state there are-inadequacies in Applicant's monitoring.

i Rather than undertake the detailed analysis contem-1 plated by'the Board's order, Mr. Doherty relies solely on the assertion that the Applicant has not shown how its-ACNGS organization and its technical competence would be applied to prevent the recourrence of those particular engineering practices he has extracted from the Report, assuming without any foundation whatsoever they were to occur during-the design and construction of Allens Creek. In essence, he asks the Board and parties to speculate that the organization and resource base used by Brown & Root at STP will be duplicated by Ebasco for use at Allens Creek, and to then require testimony exei$ining, in a vacuum, how the Applicant would deal with the resulting imaginary problems.

Mr. Doherty also fails to specify any basis for believing that these problems might recur at Allens Creek.

Applicant has provided extensive testimony about its ACNGS architect-engineer, emphasizing the differences between Ebasco und Brown & Root in terms of experience and the 2/

~

importance of that difference. The Applicant and Staff 2/ Mr. Doherty made no effort to address the Ebasco organ-ization and explain how it might be defective in light of Quadrex's criticism of Brown & Root. Section 17.1 of the PSAR describes Ebasco's program for implementation of PSAR commitments, vendor surveillance, engineering design, and design verification, which are the subjects of paragraphs C through G, I, K, M, N and O of Doherty's motion. Paragreph H regarding assessment of new regulations is addressed by the experience feedback program of Appendix 0 Item I.C.S. With reference to paragraphs J and N, Mr. Doherty does not explain why the Reliability Analysis Program (PSAR Appx. O) will fail to assure that the single failure criteria is adequately considered in the design. Lastly, Mr. Doherty has not shown any defect in Applicant's procedures (PSAR Sec. 17.1) for assuring compliance by Ebasco with the foregoing requirements.

testified at length as to how the HL&P review procedures have been modified and howfHL&P has' strengthened its technical staff during the several months since the Quadrex review was El conducted. Nothing of value can be gained by having.the Applicant and Staff now ignore those differences and file testimony pretending that Allens Creek.will be constructed.

-using an organization and resource base allegedly employed by another: architect-engineer, at a different project.

s/

III.

~

It is also important for the Board to recognize ~two additional facts about the Quadrex Report which are important to any consideration of the Quadrox findings in this proceeding.

First, the Quadrox Report is not the result of an NRC. Staff investigation nor the findings of an adjudicatory panel of the NRC. It is the product of an independent consultant hired by HL&P to assess the status of design work on the South Texas Project. HL&P, the NRC Staff and Bochtel Corpora-tion (the new STP architect-engineer) are all presently reviewing the Quadrox findings, and the ASLB in the South Texas proceeding has recently ruled that it is premature to 3/ For example, the allegation in Paragraph B totally ignores the testimony by Mr. Oprea that HL&P now has a program for systematic review (Tr. 18090).

j4 There is also nothing in the Commission's regulations, nor in ToxPirg's contention which requires the Applicant to engage in this sort of speculation.

~

consider them until these reviews are completed. (Oral Preheering Conf. Order, Dec. 8, 1981). Therefore, although Mr.-Doherty apparently gives the Report a high degree'of weight, it remains subject to considerable further analysis and its findings are entitled to no presumption of validity at the present time. .

Second, as Applicant explained in its response to Mr. Doherty's earlier motion to reopen, the proper inference to be drawn from Quadrex is that HL&P was willing to exceed NRC requirements ~and to have a third party review of the status of Brown & Root's engineering on the STP.~5/ Thus, even-leaving aside the essential question of its relevance to the ACNGS, the Quadrex Report reflects positively on the present organization and technical competence _of HL&P for it has resulted in the illumination of the very practices which Mr.

Doherty asserts might remain uncovered at Allens Creek.

IV.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant believes that Mr. Doherty has failed to demonstrate that the record should be reopened on TexPirg 31, and his motion should therefore be denied.

5/ In this regard, Applicant would note that it has also retained Quadrex to conduct an evaluation of the performance of its architect-engineer for the Allens Creek project.

Respectfully submitted, OF' COUNSEL:.

4/}Q/} Njf,y J/ reg peYand BAKER & BOTTS Sp tt E. zell 3000 One Shell Plaza 3 0 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 uston, Texas. 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN,'REIS Jack R.-Newman

& AXELRAD Robert H. Culp 1025. Connecticut Ave., N.W.- David B. Raskin Washington, D.C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY 1

5

n _. -.

• o

. \

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TEE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the ~.oregoing Appli-cant's Response to Doherty's Renewed Motion fc- Additional Evidence on TexPirg Contention 31 in the above-captioned pro-ceeding were mailed, postage prepaid, or hand delivered this 14th day of December, 1981.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Frank Petter Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. Leroy H. Grebe Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Of the Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Susan Plettman Richsrd Black David Preister Staff Counsel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission i Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555

o. . . o

~

Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas .77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 Stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro P. O.. Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texaws 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnel.

Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Carro Hinderstein James M. Scott 608 Fannin, Suite.521 13935 Ivy 'iount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Lanc, Texas 77478 D. Marrack V. O. " Butch" Carden, Jr.

420 Mulberry Lane City Attorney Bellaire, Texas 77401 City of Wallis P. O. Box A East Bernard, Texas 77435 e$d/VM/ H 1 J Gre opsland i

I

_