ML20093H201

Submits Proposal for Rev of Contention 8 Re QA & Expresses Opposition to Campaign for Prosperous Georgia & Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Revised Contention 8.Svc List Encl

ML20093H201
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	10/11/1984
From:	Trowbridge G GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-462 OL, NUDOCS 8410160201
Download: ML20093H201 (4)

Text

.

P N

SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs &cTR.OWBRIDGE A =AarnensMin or == cress.o=AL co .onAnoss 1800 M STREET, N. W notx WASHINGTON D. O "'" ' ' ' "

89 2693 (SMA* LAW WSM 4003RT iLJ 15 iN0 :53 (202: 422 soes & S22 lie 9 CAeLE sMAwLAw" RapprAX 100 trespMont gp, ,;..,

taors ear-iora

, ,,", c-taoas sar iooo --,

W..n s o,.rcr o AL auMec. October 11, 1984-(202) 822-1084 Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman .

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 (OL)

Dear Administrative Judges:

As instructed by the Board's Memorandum and Order dated September 5, 1984, the parties met in Atlanta on October 3, 1984, in an effort to agree on a revised quality assurance con-tention (CPG /GANE Contention 8). We were unable to do so. Ac-cordingly we agreed that Applicants and CPG /GANE would each file with the Board their separate proposals for revision of Contention 8 and that the NRC Staff would submit its comments on the proposals to the Board within five days after receipt of both proposals. At the October 3 meeting CPG /GANE and Appli-cants exchanged the wording of the revised contention each would propose.

8410160201 841011 PDR ADOCK 05000424 0 pop 3 503

I SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMep OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT:CNS Morton B. Margulies, Esq.

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris October 11, 1984 Page 2 Applicants propose that Contention 8 be read as follows:

Contention 8.

Applicant has failed to enforce a quality as-surance program in the welding of both the reactor coolant and containment systems of Plant Vogtle that provides adequately for the safe functioning of diverse structures, systems and components, a's required by 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix B such that rea-sonable assurance exists that operation of the plant will not endanger the public health and safety.

The Board will note that the proposed contention is comparable in scope to revised contention 8 as submitted to the Board by CPG at the prehearing conference on May 30, 1984. The scope of the proposed contention is much narrower, however, than Conten-tion 8 as originally filed by GANE.

In support of its revised contention and in opposition to the revised contention to be filed by CPG /GANE, Applicants make the following observations:

(1) CPG /GANE's revised proposal does not meet the Board's objective of " focussed" litigation. In particular, the inclu-sion without limitation of all " inspection / testing," " material preservation," " procurement" and " adequate and complete correc-tive action" could encompass an almost unbounded and poten-tially broad range of QA/QC activities and lead to massive in-terrogatories and document requests. In Applicants' view, focussed litigation includes focussed discovery.

I SHAw, PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP OF PRortSSIONAL CORPORATIONS Morton B. Margulies, Esq.

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris October 11, 1984 Page 3 (2) The scope of Applicants' proposal involves a finite but still large and important area of construction work involving in itself a wide range of QA activities. Applicants' performance in this area will provide a solid indication of the adequacy of Applicants' overall QA program.

(3) The bases set forth by CPG and GANE in support of their original Contention 8 arguably support a QA con'tention relating to welding. (Three of the five minor non-compliance listed by CPG and a number of the contractor non-conformances involve welding.) The other bases advanced by CPG and GANE do not in Applicants' view justify a QA contention, much less a contention of the scope now proposed by CPG /GANE. See Appli-cants' Response t7 GANE and CPG Supplements to Petitions for Leave to Intervene, dated May 7, 1984 (pp. 46-63).

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

+ , } .

c.

!  ! 1> / l: b George F. Trowbridge,.P.C.

Ernest L. Blake, P.C.

David R. Lewis Counsel for Applicants cc: Service List

l I l 1

UNITED RfATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RDGULA'IORY COMISSION BEEDRE 'IEE A'IO4IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

GEDIGIA POWER CCMPANY, Er &. ) Docket Nos. 50-424

) 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 ard 2) )

SERVICE LIST ltrton B. Margulies, Chairman Atcmic Safety and' Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety ard Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Gustavo A. Linenberger Docketing and Service Section Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. '

Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boara Tim Johnson Panel Ca.Tpaign for a Prosperous Georgia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 175 Trinity Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, GA 30303 Douglas C. Teper Carol A. Stangler 1209 N. Decatur Road 425 Euclid Terrace Atlanta, GA 30306 Atlanta, GA 30307 Jeanne Shorthouse Dan Feig 507 Atlanta Avenue 1130 Alta Avenue Atlanta, GA 30315 Atlanta, CA 30307 Iaurie Fowler & Vicki Breman Ingal Environmental Assistance Foundation '

1102 Healey Building Atlanta, GA 30303