ML20116G467

Reply to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Response to ASLB 850226 Memorandum & Order Re Quadrex Rept

ML20116G467
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/26/1985
From:	Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20116G453	List: ML20116G447 ML20116G467 ML20116G495
References
OL, NUDOCS 8505010507
Download: ML20116G467 (31)

Text

N: . k s -

s.

9 000KETED USNRC UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 15 Am 30 A10:51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

CFFICE Or SECRETAFV 00CKElmG & SERvitT

^"^

In the Matter of )

.. )

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) rocket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY ET AL.

) 50-499 OL

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CCANP RESPONSE TO ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1985 AND APPLICANTS' SUGGESTED SPECIFICATION OF OUADREX FINDINGS TO BE LITIGATED-Applicants hereby file their " Reply to CCANP Response to ASLB Memorandum and Order of February 26, 1985 (Section I below) .and Suggested Specification of Quadrex Findings to be Litigated" (Section'II below).

I. REPLY TO CCANP RESPONSE TO ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1985 A. Introduction Pursuant' to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's L (Board) February 26, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Memorandum and

. Order) , Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) has submitted its " Response to ASLB Memorandum and Order of February 26,1985" ( CCANP Response) in which it purports to identify SjSolgfh p _

Q.

i 1 2-additional findings from the Quadrex Report which it believes are "potentially reportable" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e), and

, should therefore, be litigated in Phase II. CCANP Response at 1.

CCANP has failed to comply with the Board's Memorandum and Order and has failed to identify any basis for litigating the reportability'of additional Quadrex findings in Phase II.

Accordingly, the Board should reject CCANP's Response and limit

- the Quadrex findings to be addressed in Phase II to those set forth in its Memorandum and Order as further specified in Sectio.n II, infra. See Memorandum and Order at 24-25.

B. Arg ument In the Board's Memorandum and Order (at 24), it )

instructed CCANP to "specify, inter alia, the particular findings

of the Quadrex Report which it claims should have been reported pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e)(1) or (ii) , together with a basis for its claim [s] . . .

( emphasis added) .

As it has in a number of instances in the past, CCANP has failed to comply with the Board's instructions. It has not specified particular findings, nor has it provided any basis for its claims. Although it has had the Quadrex Report for over 3 1/2 years, the Bechtel Task Force Report since March, 1982, the Bechtel EN-619 Work Package Review since October, 1982, the NRC Staff's NUREG-0948 review since January, 1983, and the second NRC Staf f review since August, 1984, it_has failed to utilize any of

-u- w a y-= *w-ywa- r y- - -=we- -w-----me,- wy -+ - -*- t-yw-*- --w -c--7't*Me--m y -w - e =9eg-w+-wpg -cyv-,#y------v ng- y-,-g----re-----wmm-g--v-w-w y .y

Sf .

~

4 the information contained in those reports to identify how any of the Quadrex findings allegedly meet the section 50.55(e) _

reporting criteria.

As the Board has recognized , "to be reportable

[ pursuant- to section 50.55(e)] , an item must satisfy each i of . . . three criteria:"

(1) a deficiency must be found in design or construc-tion; (2) which, if left uncorrected, could have affected ,

adversely the safety of operations; and (3) which represents either (i) a significant break-down' in the OA program conducted in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Appendix B or (ii) a significant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction 1/

Rather than attempting to identify specific findings, and to specify the bases for its conclusion that such findings meet the reporting criteria of section 50.55(e), CCANP has merely listed groups of findings which it believes are "potentially

. reportable" or " notifiable," without any ef fort to link those findings-to the applicable reporting criteria. In essence, CCANP has ignored the Board's Memorandum and Order and has attempted to bring into the litigation an essentially unlimited number of 1/ . Memorandum and Order at 7-8. The Board has recognized that subsections 50.55(e)(1) (iii) and (iv) are applicable to deficiencies in -construction, not design, and are therefore not implicated by the Quadrex Report. Memorandum and Order at 8, n.3.

, -wmw+r-s -r--->-~ve. s ,------ , - --- ----

5 ,

Quadrex findings without. any showing of potential reportability.

The Board's attempt to. identify hearing issues of manageabli proportions would be wholly frustrated if CCANP's proposal to ligigate, in wholesale fashion, large segments of the Quadrex .

Report were adopted. Additionally, it was incumbent upos'CCANP to ~ identify specific findings it desires to litigate and the reasons why those findings allegedly satisfy the section 50.55(e) -

'a s

reporting criteria, in order to permit Applicants to prepare their direct case. ' Applicants' ability to adequately prepare for '

x . .

heari6gJwould be severely hindered bysadoption of CCANP's br'oad '

charges. -

1. Most Serious Findings -

CCANP argues first that HL&P Lhould have reported all of the findings designateu as "most serious," since such,..f(ndings were ddf16ed by Quadrex an "those that pose a serious . threat;to r

plant licensabiliby'. . . ." 2/ CCANP Response at 1-2. CCAMP 4 made the same claim -in its November 21, 1981 motion to admit new 1 contentions on the Quadrex Report. 3/ It also argues that the 4

limited time provided by section 50.55(e) to report deficiencies,-

7 E ,

g

^

2/ It is not clear .whether CCANP is referring to the most serious generic findings listed in section 3.1 of the

.Ouadrex ' Report, the m'ost serious discipline findings listed

~~

.iin section 4, or both.

~

3/ CCANP Motion to File Additional Contentions Based on New '

I6 formation and to Establish a Discovery and Hearing

~

, Schedule with Respect to New Contentions (November 21, 1981) ^

at cl2P ,

~

^

w .

/ \ .

/ g j '

,.-.--e.-- a_e

7~ ~

~

t i

and the " extensive number" of findings designated by Quadrex as "most serious," required HL&P to report all of such findings to 1

the NRC.

CCANP Response at 2.

CCANP has failed, however, to show that any of the "most serious" findings even arguably meet the section 50.55(e) reporting criteria. It has not alleged a' single " deficiency in i

design and construction," has failed to assert how such deficiency, if'left uncorrected, "could have affected adversely the safety of [STP] operations," and has failed to address the .

s extent to which any such deficiency represents "[a] significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program . . ."

or "[a] significant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction . . . ." 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e)(1)(i) and (ii) .

Furthermore, CCANP's reliance on Quadrex's definition of the "most serious" findings is misplaced. It is evident from

.that definition that the category of "most serious" findings is-much broader than items meeting the section 50.55(e) reporting criteria. Quadcex defined such findings as those that:

pose [d] a serious threat to plant licens-ability because either (a) the finding would s prev 9nt the obtaining of a license, or (b) the finding could produce a significant delay in getting a license, or (c) the finding addresses a matter of serious concern to the NRC at this time.

/

h 4

4

V ,

't Quadrex Report at 3-1. Thus , a finding would be placed in the "most serious" category if Quadrex considered it to fall within any of the three portions of the definition. Moreover, none of the three portions of the definition was tantamount to a determination of reportability under section 50.55(e)

Quadrex has explained that, in stating that a finding would " prevent the obtaining of a license," it meant that

"[d] esign features satisfying . . . [ applicable] requirements would have to be incorporated in order to obtain . . . [tha]

license." 1/ obviously, this did not mean that such a finding would be reportable under section 50.55(e) . The fact that a particular design feature had not yet been incorporated might violate no regulatory requirement, might not constitute a significant deficiency, might have no adverse effect on the safety of operations, and might not meet the other reporting criteria of section 50.55(e). In other words,.even if a finding were known to fall within this portion of the definition, Quadrex

was expressing no judgment as to reportability. CCANP has made l no attempt to show that any "most serious" finding was reportable l

because it came within this portion of the definition.

l With respect to the remaining portions of the definition, Quadrex has explained that those findings which "could produce a significant delay" in obtaining a license and f/ Affidavit of J. Larry Wray on Behalf of Quadrex Corporation in Response to State of Texas' Notice for Deposition of Quadrex Corporation on Written Interrogatories (September l 13, 1983) (Quadrex Affidavit) at #13.c.

5: .

i those which " address [ed) a matter of serious concern to the NRC . . ." (Quadrex Report at 3-1), raised matters that "could be judged to poss.ibly require additional licensing review time," or "could result in licensing delay . . ." (Quadrex Affidavit at

1. 13.c.) In none of these cases was any attempt made by Quadrex to identify or suggest that a finding met the section 50.55(e) reporting criteria. In fact, Quadrex's principal thrust was not the identification of " deficiencies," but rather the extent to which the findings would occasion delays in the licensing .

process. In particular, it stated that:

Quadrex could not be conclusive of an indication of reportability , solely on the basis of the report's information.

Consequently, the report's information was provided to HL&P to be used, together with its more extensive knowledge of the overall project, to identify reportable items.

Quadrex Affidavit at # 3.

Thus, Quadrex expressly disavowed any intention of identifying items reportable under section 50.55(e) . A brief review of a few of the "most serious" findings illustrates the point:

(1) Finding 4.5.5.l(f), states that

"[llicensing acceptability of ANSI N278.2.4 should be confirmed." Quadrex Report at 4-51. The finding recommends that, as a matter of prudent licensing strategy, Brown & Root's use of a parti-cular industry standard should be verified as satisfactory to the NRC Staff since the standard had not been approved by the Staff. See Quadrex question M-50.

~

(2) Finding 4.7.2.l(a) states: "[t] he FSAR should be corrected since no modal analysis is done." Quadrex Report at 4-74. This finding suggests that the FSAR be updated to reflect that certain -

analyses were not performed, but the underlying Quadrex assessment expressly states that the approach utilized'was

" typical" of industry practice. See Quadrex question P-7.

(3) Finding 4.7. 3.1( f) states: "[ijt is possible that the NRC may impose some of

[the provisions of a branch technical position on STP)... as they have on other plants ahead of STP." Quadrex Report at 4-79. Quadrex suggests that STP may be required, in the future, to meet the intent of the cited branch technical position, and that it "may be prudent" to address the matter with the Staff at an early date. See Quadrex question P-16.-jb/

In none of the foregoing findings is there the slightest suggestion of a reportable deficiency under NRC regulations.

Finally, the reasons why CCANP cannot simply rely on the definitions set forth in the Quadrex Report were also discussed at the October 16, 1984 prehearing conference (Tr.

10819-21). CCANP ignores that discussion, noting simply that the Board failed to " recount" its earlier argument. Response at 1.

CCANP's insistence that the Quadrex definitions establish per se the criteria for reportability reflects an obdurate refusal to accept the Board's guidance.

5/' See also, the discussion of finding 4.5.5.l(a) at the October 16, 1984 prehearing conference. Tr. 10813, 10819-21.

PL .

Furthermore, CCANP fails to even allege that the "most serious" findings meet the section 50.55(e) reporting criteria.

In lieu of stating facts in support of that essential point, CCANP suggests , instead, that given the " extensive" number of such findings, and the limited time provided by section 50.55(e) 4 for reporting deficiencies, HL&P should have notified the NRC of such findings immediately, and evaluated the extent to which they met the ' reporting criteria of section 50.55(e) at a later time.

CCANP Response at 1-2. .

CCANP's position in this regard appears to be based upon its unstated speculation that HL&P could not have effec-i tively evaluated such findings for reportability in the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following receipt of the report and that, therefore, all such findings should have been reported. It totally ignores the fact that HL&P had the benefit of-its accumulated previous knowledge f.

i of the Brown & Root design and design process. CCANP also fails i

to recognize that HL&P's review was f urther aided by the prompt review by teams of knowledgeable Brown & Root discipline engineers, who were aided by their previous awareness of the l

l underlying Quadrex questions and answers, as well as some l

l previous indications as to the nature of some of the findings.

l L Moreover, apart from CCANP's failure to make any showing that such a review was not possible or feasible, its view is i

L contradicted inr the fact that none of the subsequent reviews of the Quadrex findings by HL&P, Bechtel and the NRC Staff have identified any additional reportable items.

T .,

2. Any Discipline Finding Supporting a Generic Find ing Requiring Notification The second general category of findings which CCANP wishes to litigate in Phase II are those discipline findings

" supporting" the generic findings which CCANP claims required

" notification" of the NRC. CCANP Responsefat 2. Again, however, CCANP makes no effort to identify the specific reporting criteria of 50.55(e) which HL&P allegedly violated and, in fact, does not even identify either the generic findings or the specific discipline findings it wishes to litigate. CCANP's statement that underlying discipline findings would necessarily "have the same potential effect on safety in their more limited sphere . . ." as the generic findings, is not only speculative, but wrong. Id.

By way of exanple, the Board has preliminarily identified certain ' generic findings for litigation.because of t CCANP's claims as to their possible QA implications. However, in numerous instances, as discussed in section II. A. , infra, portions of such findings contain statements which have no OA implications whatsoever. There is no basis, therefore, to litigate the discipline findings which support those portions of the generic findings.

In addition, the Quadrex Report does not identify the specific discipline findings which support the generic findings.

- As a result there would be no way to litigate the discipline l findings, as proposed by CCANP, without engaging in speculation.

L l

y; a. .

Furthermore, CCANP appears to suggest not that the underlying discipline findings were reportable per se, but

. instead, that "[s] Laply as a practical matter" and "in order to be complete," HL&P's " reporting of a generic finding .

. . would have stated the basis for that finding , i.e. , named the Ouadrex -

Report and provided' the particular discipline findings on which

[ the generic finding was based." CCANP Response at 2.

Clearly, CCANP's allegation that references to the underlying discipline findings were essential for the " complete, ness" of reports on generic findings does not provide any basis for concluding that the discipline findings themselves were reportable (or for litigating the reportability of other generic findings). Accordingly,.CCANP has failed to identify, or specify the basis for litigating, any additional discipline findings.

3. ' All Findings Identified by the NRC Staf f as Safety-Significant CCANP also argues, without further explanation or support, that "all findings . . . identified by the NRC Staff [in NUREG-0948] as ' safety significant' fall into the notification category." CCANP Response at 2. This claim most clearly demonstrates the manner in which CCANP has ignored the Board's Memorandum and Order.

As CCANP should have been aware had it reviewed NUREG-0948, the Staf f did not classify the Quadrex findings as " safety significant" for purposes of a reportability review. The Staff's review for reportability is summarized in section 3.1 of NUREG-

)

0948. Instead, the Staff classified findings as " safety-significant" under section 3.2, in order to identify those items it needed to review "to assure that adequate corrective action and proper disposition had been taken," not to determine whether such items should or should not have been reported. NUREG-0948 at 24. 258 "line-items" ( findings or portions of findings) were so classified. Nothing in NUREG-0948 bmplies that such items meet the reporting requirements of section 50.55(e) .

Accordingly, CCANP has taken a wholly irrelevant NRC Staff classification, and without providing any support or rationale, has sought to utilize that classification to insert the bulk of the Quadrex findings into the proceeding.

4. " Design Inadequacies with Potential Quality Assurance Implications" Finally, on page 3 of its Response, CCANP identifies specific findings, or excerpts from the Quadrex Report, in two l general categories which it wishes to litigate in~ Phase II. As to the first category, its only rationale for reportability is that the quoted portions " concern design inadequacies with potential quality assurance implica t ions . " CCANP Response at 3.

That rationale, even if true, is wholly insufficient as a basis for claiming that the quoted excerpts were reportable, since it fails to suggest the existence of a condition which could adversely affect safe operation, or rises to the level of a

~'

K u.

significant breakdown in the QA program. Furthermore , as 1

Applicants show below, nothing in the quoted portions suggests a reportable def.iciency.

a.- Section 4.1.2 With respect to this portion of the Quadrex Report, CCANP- quotes a sentence which simply states that~ "[b] ased solely L on the findings of this, review, a determination of current adequacy [of the Civil / Structural design] cannot be made." CCANP Response at 3. That sentence simply states a truism. Quadrex did not review the entire . Civil / Structural design, and in fact, expressly noted that it did not review "a number of [ ongoing]

studies . . . of . . . [ tha t] de s ig n . " Quadrex Report at 4-4.

Thus, based on its limited review, Quadrex concluded that it could not state an opinion on the adequacy of the Civil /Struc-tural design. Id. Nothing in the quoted statement provides any indication of a OA deficiency or any basis for believing that any aspect of the Civil / Structural design is reportable under section 50.55(e).

b. Section 4.5.5 With respect to section 4.5.5 of the Quadrex Report, CCANP quotes the first sentence which states that "[t] he technical adequacy of the Mechanical discipline is not presently adequate." CCANP Response at 3. CCANP fails to explain how that statement evinces OA implications. Furthermore, the following portions of section 4.5.5 do not mention or even imply a QA

5 -

deficiency in the design process or product. Quadrex's concern with the Mechanical discipline's understanding of code and industry "requ.irements," does not relato, in any manner, to the OA review of design or suggest any deficiency in the OA program.

Quadrex Report at 4-4 9. Its concern regarding the " lack of results" from the integrated systems review function, reflects the fact that Quadrex did not evaluate Brown & Root's existing

?s systems review function, and in any event, a mere lack of results reviewed by Quadrex would not suggest a OA deficiency. Id.

'Thus, whatever the basis for the Quadrex observation, it is no indication of a potentially reportable significant OA breakdown.

c. Section 4.6.2 CCANP quotes a portion of section 4.6.2. The thrust of Quadrex's observation is that the nuclear analyses performed by Brown & Root were either not complete or not adequate. Quadrex

, Report at 4-57. But as several of the other portions indicate, even if that statement were true, the potential bupact would be on cost and schedule i.e. , (" licensing delays, retrofits, . . .

overconservatism," etc.). While the section does refer to errors in design inputs and use of unverified design inputs by disciplines (Quadrex Report at 4-58), errors in calculations or inputs do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate reportable OA deficiencies. Furthermore, unverified, preliminary data is l commonly used during nuclear power plant design evolution and l

f ~,

construction. Thus, the section does not point to any reportable OA deficiencies and CCANP has not attempted to demonstrate that such deficien.cies have occurred.

d. Section 4.8.2 With respect to section 4.8.2, CCANP quotes a portion of the Quadrex Report which states that "[t]he B&R Radiological Control design program is not currently adequate." CCANP Response at 3. Even if the statement is true, there is no indication that the alleged inadequacy involved any reportable deficiency in the OA program. Quadrex's concern in this regard related primarily to Brown & Root's ALARA activities. Since inadequacies in ALARA activities would not result in exposures exceeding 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limitations, such inadequacies would not create conditions which could adversely affect safe operation.

Quadrex's statement regarding Brown & Root's Radiological Coatrol design program was also based upon its concerns related to classification of shielding calculations, a common instrument air line, and the deletion of filter media from the MAB exhaust. The NRC was notified of the classification of shielding calculations as potentially reportable on May 8, 1981; and of the common instrument air line on March 15, 1982. Both items were, upon further evaluation, determined not to be reportable. With respect to the deletion of filter media from the MAB exhaust, Quadrex simply stated that that plant

(

ai:

modification "need[ed] to be-reexamined." See Quadrex questions R-5 and R-29. Thus, the Radiological Control design program was not reportabl.e on a general basis.

5. " Specific Areas of Concern for the Adequacy of Design" In its second category, CCANP includes findings for which it provides absolutely no rationale except its concern for "the adequacy of design." CCANP Response at 3. Obviously, CCANP completely fails to show how such alleged design inadequacies,.

even if they existed, potentially meet the reportability requirements of section 50.55(e).

a. Section 4.6.2.4 With respect to Section 4.6.2.4, CCANP states that Brown & Root failed "to address simultaneous normal shutdown of both units." CCANP Response at 3. It ignores the fact that the cited finding was not even listed by Quadrex in the "most serious" category. CCANP does not allege, let alone provide, any basis for reporta'oility of this item.

b. Section 4.4.2.1 With respect to Section 4.4.2.1, CCAhP refers 1.o one of seven findings on the HVAC discipline (4.4.2.l(a)) which alleged tnat plant operating modes and off-normal operating conditions had not been adequately addressed in the HVAC design. This condition was, in fact, reported to the NRC on May 8, 1981.

TT -

c. Finding 3.2(n) and-Section 4.8.2.2 Finally, CCANP refers to two additional ALARA items:

Finding 3.2(n) , which it characterizes as inadeguate consideration of ALARA radiation exposures related to access for maintenance and inspection, and section 4.8.2.2, which it characterizes as inadequate ALARA analysis. CCANP Response at 3.

CCANP ignores the fact that Quadrex characterized these findings as " serious," that is, they appear to impact "the generation of reliable power", but "are not considered to be a serious threat to plant licensability." Quadrex Report 3-14 and 4-87. These problems, by definition, even if true, would not have affected adverrely the safety of operations since they would not result in exposures exceeding 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limitations.

CCANP has not shown how they would have constituted reportable items under section 50.55(e).

C. Conclusion In short, CCANP has attempted to raise, in wholesale fashion a host of Ouadrex findings which it believes should be litigated in Phase II. It has failed to identify specific findings and has made no effort to show how such findings meet the reporting criteria of section 50.55(e) . It has flaunted the Board's instructions and ignored the substantial body of information available to it in assessing the Quadrex findings.

Having failed to demonstrate that any additional findings even arguably meet the reporting criteria of section 50.55(e) , its Response should be rejected.

II. SUGGESTED SPECIFICATION OF QUADREX FINDINGS TO BE LITIGATED A. The Generic Findings At pages 10-15 of its Memorandum and Order, the Board discussed CCANP's contentions regarding the reportability of the generic findings and one of the discipline findings under S 50.55(e)(1)(i).- After discussing CCANP's allegations regarding these findings the Board concluded that "CCANP has properly advanced questions concerning the adequacy of HL&P's reporting .

. ..." Id. at 15. The Board provided CCANP an opportunity to identify the particular findings it claims should have been reported and stated that, "otherwise, CCANP may challenge L reportability under those subsections only of the findings cited in this Memorandum and Order (including the entire Report) or of i

additional findings (if any) as may be identified by the Board."

Id. at 25. However, the Board also stated that the prehearing conference will be held "to discuss the particular matters to be j heard." Id,. at 24.

As part of the process of identifying such particular matters, Applicants believe some refinement of the aspects of the generic findings to be considered in the hearing is appropriate.

This is particularly true in light of CCANP's Response.

In Section II of its Response, CCANP states that "the ASLB did not recount CCANP's position that:

i The Quadrex Corporation chose a ranking method for their findings which included Most Serious Findings. Quadrex defined Most Serious Findings as, in part, 'those that pose a serious threat'to plant licensability

because . . . (c) the finding addresses a matter of serious concern to the NRC at this time.' This classification alone should have cause[d] Applicants to report all findings in thi.s classification to the NRC." Motion for new contentions at 12. CCANP reurges this position."

CCANP Response at 1-2. CCANP's quarrel with the Board's reading of_the November.21, 1981, motion suggests the need to review the Board's reading of that pleading, particularly with respect to the issue of the reportability of the generic findings. A review of_those' findings shows that substantial portions of them do not bear any apparent-relationship to Appendix B, and in fact, CCANP's attempts to identify Appendix B requirements related to those findings are strained at best. In such cases the aspects of such findings at issue in the Phase II hearing should be appropriately limited.

1. Finding 3.1(a) Systems Level Integration This generic finding expresses concern about the Brown

& Root systems integration and overview functions. To the limited extent that this finding can be read as alleging inadequacy in the Brown & Root engineering procedures as they pertain to systems level integration or a failure to comply with such procedures, the finding may be viewed as being related to Appendix B, Criteria III and V. However, to the extent that the finding addresses the organization of Brown & Root engineering or

- 2!)

weaknesses in the skills of Brown & Root, no Appendix B requirements would be involved.. Thus the issue of reportability

- should be so . limited.

With respect to the reference to discipline finding 4.3.2.l(a), which is mentioned in the Board's discussion of this finding (Order at 13), no Appendix B requirements are mentioned

, in the finding or the Board's Order and, as the Board noted, j CCANP has not alleged any relationship to Appendix B. Since

~

there is no identification of any related Appendix B criterion.

and no direct relationship to Appendix B is apparent, this finding should not be included in the hearing.

2. Finding 3.1(b) B&R Review of Engineering Data This finding is broken down into three parts. The first part concerns the review of input data. Appendix B does not require the users of the data output by other technical groups to review the adequacy of that data. The QA program applicable to the originating group is established to assure the adequacy of that data. Neither does Appendix B require that the group producing the data as its output review the use of that data by the user group (since the user group has the expertise on how that data should be used). Thus the first part of finding 3.1(b) does not allege any violation of Appendix B and could not be reportable.

e y, ,, , . .

L -

~:.,

-121 -

The second part of ' finding 3.1(b) relates to errors detected in calculations which have been verified. Although we do not believe Quadrex intended it, to the limited extent one might infer from this finding a deficiency in the Brown & Root verification. procedures, the qualification of B&R design verifiers cnr a failure to perform required design verification, this part of:the finding would relate to Appendix B,' Criteria III L'

and V.

The third part of this finding is Quadrex's view that Brown & Root review of the vendor submitted reports was not consistent. No violation of any Appendix B requirement is alleged; Appendix B allows reliance on-an accepted vendor QA program to assure the adequacy of vendor reports. For example, Quadrex stated that there was no evidence that "B&R is checking and approving analysis methods selected.by Westinghouse". The QA program did not require such Brown & Root review. The issuance of

'the' construction permit was based in part on the qualifications of Westinghouse to do its own analyses.

There is certainly no' allegation in generic finding 3.1(b) regarding the quality assurance organization (Criterion I), and none of the work activities addressed involves the QA organization. The establishment.of adequate requirements in procurement documents (Criterion IV), relates to the writing of specifications, not the review of procured services.

Inspection-(Criterion X) does not apply to design activities;

} .

the review of design work is accomplished through audits and design verification. Audits (Criterion XVIII) are required for design activities, but this finding contains no suggestion of criticism regarding such audits. Thus, those sections of Appendix B cited by CCANP are clearly inapplicable.

3. Finding 3.l(c) Plant Operating Modes and Environmental Conditions Analysis The essence of this finding is a criticism of Brown &

Root's failure'to provide a single document specifying all operating modes and environmental conditions. There is no requirement for such a document in Appendix B. .There are, in fact, a variety of ways in which an engineering organization can achieve the objectives of such a document. Judgments regarding the extent to which engineers must be given written direction about how to perform their work, as opposed to reliance on their engineering experience, are not provided in Appendix B.

Moreover, Appendix B does not address the timeliness of design activities.

l l In any event, this finding does not reflect on document L

control (Criterion VI); there is no allegation regarding the issuance of unreviewed documents or failure to properly l

distribute them. Criterion V (Instructions, Procedures and l Drawings), which is also cited by CCANP, is not material either because, as discussed above, it does not specify that procedures l

are required to the level of detail addressed in the Quadrex finding.

i

3 .

.4. Finding 3.l(d) Safety-Related vs.

Non-Safety-Related Distinctions This generic finding deals with the designation of activities as' safety-related as opposed to non-safety related.

Brown & Root's.use of a sharp distinction is consistent with Appendix.B and could not in itself be. reportable. See the Introduction to Appendix B. Quadrex alleged that there were errors'in Brown & Root's designation of certain activities as not safety related. Such errors, if they existed, would be design

' ~

errors, but since Quadrex did not identify any sytemic deficiency, they do not constitute a violation of Appendix B.

Certainly, there is no basis for any assertion that this Quadrex finding suggests a violation of Criterion I, since the. finding does:.not even mention the quality assurance organization. Similarly the finding does not deal wi.a the written OA program (Criterion II). Thus, CCANP's reliance on these criteria is misplaced.

l-(. 5. Finding 3.l(e) FMEA and Single L Failure Criterion Analysis l

l This finding essentially alleges that Brown & Root had not yet done failure mode effects analyses. This relates to the

. timing of design activities and does not suggest any violation of Appendix B. There is no requirement in Appendix B that suggests the order.in which design analyses should be performed.

[ To the extent that finding 3.l(e) alleges that there is L a requirement that a single' document provide guidelines for the L

l

[ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

5- -

~'

conduct of FMEAs, this finding could be viewed as alleging a violation of Criterion V. Accordingly, the Board's consideration of Finding 3.l(e) should be limited to this aspect of it.

6. Finding 3.l(f) FSAR Commitment Tracking The essence of this finding is that in some instances the FSAR is not up-to-date. Appendix B does not provide any guidance on how frequently the FSAR is to be reviewed and updated, nor what constitutes the timely updating of the FSAR.

CCANP's references to Criteria VI and X are completely inapposite. There is no suggestion that the FSAR was issued without proper review or had not been distributed appropriately, and thus no violation of Criterion VI is implicated. Criterion X (Inspection) simply does not apply to design activities, and is clearly not related to this finding.

7. Finding 3.l(g) Plant Design Basis This Quadrex finding states that the reasons for design basis decisions were not documented. There is no requirement in Appendix B or other applicable quality assurance standard that such reasons be documented. Reasons for design decisions are not the same as verification, which confirms the adequacy of the design. The reasons relate to choices among acceptable alternatives.

.Quadrex suggested greater use of TRDs to identify criteria applicable-to a number.of disciplines. To the extent

~

this.suggerts that procedures and-instructions were not adequate,

- itimay be viewed as somewhat related to Criterion V.

There is no Appendix B requirement that Westinghouse review Brown & Root design or - that Brown & Root review

- Westinghouse design. While there are requirements for the

' control of the interface between those designs, Quadrex does not allege ~any-violation of such requirements.

There is no requirement that there be.a consistent design margin adopted for each discipline, and, in fact, there may be good reason why different design margins will be selected for different aspects of the design. No Appendix B criterion is applicable to the_ selection of such margins.

Appendix B does not requitc the use of design manuals as guidelines for engineers or engineer log books.

There is no mention in Finding 3.l(g) of the QA i

l - organization (Criterion I), the written QA program (Criterion i

L II), the control of purchased material equipment and services

(Criterion VII), or audits (Criterion XVIII). As discussed I

! above, to the limited extent of its discussion of TRDs this

' finding may be viewed as related to Criterion V.

p l

f

): u

8. Finding 3.l(h) - Equipment Reliability Requirements This finding relates to the specification of equipment reliability r.equirements for the ESF sequencer and perhaps to

specifications for other mechanical and electric equipment. There are

no Appendix B requirements that mention equipment reliability requirements. This finding clearly relates to matters of g- engineering judgement and bears no relationship to procedural 7

i. issues controlled-by Appendix B. CCANP's reliance on Criterion

.II is completely inapposite, because the finding makes no mention of the OA Program documents.

9. Finding 3.l(i) - Nuclear Related Analysis The essence of this finding is the Quadrex question of the engineering judgments and productivity of the Brown & Root nuclear analysis group. There is no suggestion or finding that any Appendix B requirement was violated. Such findings are clearly not addressed in the requirements for a quality assurance organization (Criterion I) or for a written quality assurance program (Criterion II).

10. Finding 3.l(j) - Final Design Verification This Quadrex concern relates to the use of preliminary design information in the construction of the South Texas Project, and the performance of design verification. Appendix B does not address the use of preliminary designs in construction.

'Indeed the very nature of a design and construction process that permits construction to begin before completion of the entire

3 i plant design is that there must be construction to preliminary design information. For example, the final loads on the building foundations and structures cannot be determined until the equipment is procured and its weight determined. Nevertheless, buildings are routinely erected while such equipment is being designed and procured, on the basis of conservative preliminary design assumptions. This does not violate Appendix B since verification will be done before plant operation.

Appendix B does not require specification of the minimum qualifications for a design verifier. However, to the extent this finding is construed as alleging violation of design verification procedures, it may be viewed as related to Appen' dix B, Criteria III and V.

This finding makes no mention of the quality assurance organization (Criterion I), the quality assurance written program (Criterion II), the control of purchased equipment and services 1

(Criterion VII), or audits (Criterion XVIII); nor is there any suggestion in generic finding 3.1(j) that any of these criteria were violated. Thus CCANP's citations are inapposite.

11. Summary In view of the fact that substantial sections of the i Quadrex generic findings do not suggest violation of any Appendix B requirement, let alone a significant breakdown in the OA 1

i program, there is no reason to require a hearing on the 1

l l

l L

T' .

~

. I reportability of those sections of the findings. Accordingly, the Board should limit its consideration of reportability of the generic findings to the following:

(i) Quadrex Finding 3.1(a) Systems Level Integration

-- Was there a deficiency in the Brown & Root engineering procedures as they pertained to systems level integration, or in its compliance with such procedures, such as to constitute a significant breakdown in the OA' program requirements of Appendix B, Criterion V.

(ii) Quadre:: Finding 3.l(b) -- Was there a deficiency in the Brown & Root quality assurance program with respect to the adequacy of verification procedures, or qualifications of design verifiers or the implementation of design verification procedures, such as to constitute a significant breakdown in the OA program requirements of Appendix B, Criteria III and V.

(iii) Quadrex Finding 3.1(e) -- Was there a failure of Brown & Root to provide in a single document guidelines for the conduct of FMEAs such as to constitute a significant breakdown in the OA program requirements of Appendix B, Criterion V.

(iv) Quadrex Finding 3.l(g) -- Was there a failure of Brown & Root to make adequate use of TRDs to identify criteria applicable to a number of disciplines such as to constitute a significant breakdown in the OA program requirements of Appendix B, Criterion V.

> ~

~

o (v) Quadrex Finding 3.l(j) -- Was there a failure of Brown & Root to comply with its design verification procedures such as to constitute a significant breakdown in the OA program requirements of. Appendix B, Criteria III and V.

B. Findings As to h5ich the NRC Staff Relied on " Lack of Release For Construction" As previously noted the Board indicated in its February 26, Memorandum and Order thft if CCANP did not specify findings, it could only litigate findings listed in the Order (Memorandum and Order at 25).

It is unclear to Applicants whether the Board had in mind any findings other than the generic findings discussed in II.A above. In reviewing the Order the only additional significant discussion of findings appears at pages 14-15 where the Board addressed "the Staff's determinations that various design items included in the Quadrex Report had or had not been released for construction, within the meaning of [10 C.F.R.

S 50.55(e)(1)(ii)]." The Board then stated that "[if] we assume

! that the Staff may have relied on B&R's designations, we must l also point out that the Quadrex Report itself includes findings which might undercut any reliance on B&R's designation of its design drawings." The Board thus specifically referred to the 27 discipline findings (Category 3) identified in the Staff's August 24, 1984 brief as being nonreportable on that basis alone.

g --

0 o

Although CCANP has not specifically discussed these 27 findings in its previous filings or shown why they should have been reported, it is possible that the Board may have had them in mind when it issued its February 26 Memorandum and Order.

If the Board is interested in testimony concerning the non-reportability of such findings taking into account its criticism of the Staff's rationale, Applicants believe that it is unnecessary to include in the hearing all 27 findings -

particularly in the absence of any claim by any party that they were reportable. A reasonable approach which would not unnecessarily burden the record would be to address in the hearing only the 7 findings in that group 6/ which were categorized by Quadrex as "most serious". Although, as we have previously shown, such categorization does not indicate any judgment by Quadrex as to reportability, it does include the only findings which Quadrx thought might have serious licensing implications.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the Board should reject CCANP's Response and provide further refinement of the issues n

6/

Finding 4.1.2.1(b), 4.3.2.1(1), 4.5.2.l(b), 4.6.2.1(n),

4.7.3.1(a), 4.7.3.1(b) and 4.7.3.1(k).

5  ;

E s

regarding reportability of Quadrex findings in accordance with Section II of this response.

Respectfully submitted, f 1Y ,

Jack R. Newman Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Steven P. Frantz Donald J. Silverman 1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Dated: April 26, 1985 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING 1615 L Street, N.W. & POWER COMPANY, Project Manager Washington, D.C. 20036 of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and BAKER & BOTTS THE OTHER Applicants, THE CITY 3000 One Shell Plaza OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by Houston, Texas 77002 and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 1