ML20128A567

Motion for Clarification of Two Rulings in 850517 Sixth Prehearing Conference Order.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20128A567
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/21/1985
From:	Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-120 OL, NUDOCS 8505240261
Download: ML20128A567 (8)

Text

'IP

't UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00 F TED In the Matter of ) 23 ~#106

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 h ~lCE OF SECRETAsv COMPANY, ET AL. .) 50-499 d XETgr Epygg (South Texas Project, Units 1 )

.and 2) ) i s APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SIXTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER On May 17, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its Sixth Prehearing Conference Order (Order). Applicants hereby submit a motion for clarification with respect to two of the rulings in the Order.

Litigation of Finding 4.3.2.l(1)

On page 12 of the Order, the Board identified seven findings from the Quadrex Report for litigation. The Order states that these findings are the Quadrex "most serious" findings " listed by the Staff as not reportable based on lack of release for construction." In fact, one of the findings

identified at page 12 of the Order (finding 4.3.2.1(1)) was not so listed by the-Staff. See "NRC Staff Response To Licensing Board Memorandum And Order Regarding The Reportability Of The Quadrex Report" (August 24, 1984), p. 9 and Enclosure p. 3. The 8505240261 850521 PDR ADOCK 05000498 t g PDR 6 7

-* - - - - & wet v y- yy y w- ---vv v' a- -q- gp y .-.ee- *w- ^-v yr- - ir'

de:.

-:2 -

.y Applicants-assume that the Order contains a typographical error, and that the Board intended to. identify finding 4.3.2.l(n). This finding-wasilisted by the Staff-as not reportable based on lack of' release for construction,_but which was not included among the seven fin' dings identified in the Order. ~ Applicants' request that the Board issue an order clarifying t!'at finding 4.3.2.l(n), and not finding 4.3.2.l(1), is to be litigated.

Litigation of Section 4.3.2.1 The second matter warranting clarification pertains to the Board's discussion of Section 4.3.2.1 on page 11 of the Order. The Order notes "that LBP-85-6 (at p. 13) set forth as a h' earing issue.the reportability as a significant QA breakdown of thesnon-reported segments of Quadrex finding 4.3.2.1" (emphasis added). While we believe that it was the Board's intention to litigate only finding 4.3.2.l(a), this passage could be inter-preted as admitting all of the findings in Section 4.3.2.1 for litigation. However, as we show below, such an interpretation would be overly-broad and would be inconsistent with LBP-85-6.

Consequently, we request the Board to clarify its Order to make it consistent with LBP-85-6.

Section 4.3.2.1 has two principal parts. The first part, consisting of finding 4.3.2.l(a) on page 4-21 of the Quadrex Report, was characterized by Quadrex as an "I&C finding

[which], if left uncorrected, would be a violation of 10 CFR'50 and would seriously impact plant licensability. An overall

-=

9 g.

review should be made to determine if this is a generic design error, as similar problems could exist in other portions of the design." The'second part, consisting of findings 4.3.2.l(b) through 4.3.2.l(o) on pages 4-21 through 4-24 of the Quadrex Report, was' characterized by Quadrex as " findings [which] may have a serious impact on plant-licensability or deserve licensing

. attention." See Quadrex Report, p. 4-21.

The Board's Order in LBP-35-6, at slip opinion pages 13 and 15, did not admit Section 4.3.2.1 as a whole for litigation

. but instead simply held that the " allegations with respect to discipline finding 4.3.2.1" in CCANP's November 21, 1981, submission, at pages 14-15, 1/ were an acceptable basis for litigation. In turn, CCANP's allegations at pages 14-15 of its November 21, 1981, submission only-addressed the first part of Section 4.3.2.1 (which encompasses finding 4.3.2.1(a)) and did not pertain to the second part of Section 4.3.2.1 (which encompasses findings 4.3.2.l(b) through 4.3.2.l(o)), as is apparent from the following passage:

Section 4.3.2.1, p. 4-21 of the Quadrex report contains the following-Most Serious Finding:

1/ " Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion To File Additional Contentions Based On New Information And To Establish A Discovery And Hearing Schedule With Respect To New Contentions" (November 21, 1981), pp. 14-15.

=I W

i

~

"[T]he following I&C finding, if left uncorrected, would be a violation of 10 CFR .

50 and would seriously impact plant licensa-bility. An overall review should be made to determine if this is a generic design error, as similar problems could exist'in other portions of the design:

(a)- The common instrument air line, as depicted in the FSAR drawing 9.4.2-2' attached _to Question R-6, does not meet the single failure criterion required by IEEE 279-1971 and 10 CFR 50 ....

In most organizations, the I&C discipline would detect and immediately correct this type of design error by performing a rigorous examination of the separation provided between redundant divisions in the safety-related portions of the plant for all involved disciplines."

'Here we have a finding whose opening sentence reads like a 50.55(e)(1). This finding cites a very specific deficiency as clearly violating 10 C.F.R. Part 50. The deficiency is obviously significant, The deficiency suggests the possibility of a generic design error requiring extensive evaluation. Finally, the deficiency is the type which would be readily detected and corrected in most design organizations.

Houston Lighting and Power did not report this finding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e).

'The fact that CCANP's submission specifically identified only

-finding.4.3.2.l(a), that it-spoke in the singular (i.e., finding, not findings), that it referred only to page 4-21 of the Quadrex Report, and that it referred to violations of 10 CFR Part 50 and a " generic design' error" clearly demonstrate that CCANP's

i,-

s November' 21, 1981, submission only addressed finding 4.3.2.1(a) and not findings 4.3.2.l(b) through'4.3.2.1(o). Since it is apparent that11t was the Board's intent to litigate only the reportability of what was alleged by CCANP in its November 21, 1981 submission, and since there is no basis for litigating all of.the findings in Section 4.3.2.1, Applicants request that the Board issue an order. clarifying that only finding 4.3.2.1(a), and not1Section 4.3.2.1 as a whole, is to be litigated. 2/

Conclusion-For the foregoing reasons, Applicants move that the Board clarify ~its Sixth Prehearing Conference Order. Due to the limited time available for preparation of written testimony, the Applicants also request that the Board rule on the motion

-2/ As we discuss above, finding 4.3.2.l(n) would also be litigable on a different basis.

= --

, t. '

3 expediti*ously, perhaps by means of a conference call among~the r

Board and parties. To facilitate such expeditious treatment,

'this motion has been served by hand on the Board and the parties.

Respectfully submitted, 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, TX 77002 Dated: May 21, 1985 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING 1615 L' Street, N.W. & POWER COMPANY, Project Washington, D.C. 20036 Manager of the South Texas Project acting herein on BAKER & BOTTS behalf of itself and the 3000 One Shell Plaza other Applicants, The City of Houston, TX 77002 San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

.4 b

UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 000KETED USNRC BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of h

)

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OLOFFICE OF SEckt. tan'r COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL OOCKETgG gjERVILI.

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4

I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Clarification Of Sixth Prehearing Conference Order" have been served on-the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by arranging for delivery as indicated by asterisk, on this 21th day of May, 1981.

• Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Brian Berwick, Esq.

Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, TX 78711

• *Dr. James C. Lamb, III Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Administrative Judge Barbara A. Miller 313 Woodhaven Road Pat Coy Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power

• Frederick J. Shon 5106 Casa Oro Administrative Judge San Antonio, TX 78233 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *Lanny Alan Sinkin Washington, D.C. 20555 3022 Porter St., N.W., #304 Washington, D.C. 20008 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Executive Director Ray Goldstein, Esq.

l Citizens for Equitable Gray, Allison & Becker Utilities, Inc. 100 Vaughn Building I

Route 1, Box 1684 807 Brazos Brazoria, TX 77422 Austin, TX 78701-2553 j

l

$E _

4 3'

/s ;

• Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.

Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• / Hand delivery

[*/ Federal Express t