ML20137X584
| ML20137X584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1982 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Oberg C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137X502 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-519 NUDOCS 8603100223 | |
| Download: ML20137X584 (2) | |
Text
. _ -. - - - - _ _ _
1 d
UNITED s7ATEs j
y"
/;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
f REoioN ev F%
eM RYAN MA2A DRIVE, sURE 1000
(
%,,,,, /
AmuNovoN. texas non e.w s,=
i l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chester R. Oberg, Quadrex Report Coordinator I
FROM:
Allen R. Johnson, Quadrex Lead Reviewer, Controls and i
l Instrumentation / Electrical Discipline
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF QUADREX REPORT ISSUES; SUBMITTAL OF NRC-RIV 1
ASSESSMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS --- CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTATION /
j ELECTRICAL DISCIPLINE i
To date, the above subject review, assessment, and conclusions have been i
submitted to your office, on the designated Quadrex Review Forms, and are therefore, considered complete.
i l
A summary of the above subject review are as follews:
1.
Scope of Review
[
I There were a total of 54 generic and specific Quadrex Findings and Questions. Tne C&I/ Electrical Lead Reviewer addressed 19 Quadrex i
Findings and 22 Quadrex Questions. Twelve Quadrex Findings and 1 Quadrex j
Question were reassigned by the Quadrex Report Coordinator to himself, which were programmatic or documentation orientated in nature.
Issues not satisfied by the Quadrex assessments (Volume I of Quadrex f
l Report... i.e., assessment of B&R responses to Quadrex Questions by the Quadrex Corporation) were reviewed by the Lead C&I/ Electrical i
l Reviewer.
The primary basis for the subject review was for comment, rejection, or acceptance of adquacy of resolution.
l i
2.
Summary of Review I
2.1 The one potentially reportable 10 CFR 50.55(e) issue; identified in the Quadrex Finding (4.3.2.1(a)), was adequately resolved and is not reportable. There were no other 10 CFR 50.55(e) items identified to l
Region IV.
l l
2.2 During the review, the Lead Reviewer found no instances of impact on safety by the identified Quadrex issues.
/
l
%l 48l M
0603100223 060106 1
~
43.ay; __.... -
-[
Sg Chester R. Oberg 2
t
\\
2.3 The Lead Reviewer found no instances where the adequacy of the Bechtel resolutions failed to address the Quadrex issues.
2.3.1 All Quadrex question outstanding issues, not satisfied by the Quadrex Assessment (Volume I, Quadrex Report), were addressed in the Bechtel Quadrex Finding Resolution Summaries (line items), or by subsequent discussions and review of the Lead Reviewer during his inspection visit on September 20-24, 1982.
3.
Observations and Comments 3.1 It was observed that the Quadrex Findings, particularly the Quadrex Questions, were in-depth reviews of the Quadrex Corporation audit team.
However, the B&R responses to these questions by-in-large, were addressed adequately and in-depth, providing well defined answers and examples.
Timeliness, in terms of finalizing the plant design, appeared to have been a problem.
B&R did not appear to have violated the " orderly design and progression of a nuclear power plant" concept, normally carried out by most Architect Engineering firms, but just had not progressed far enough.
3.2 It was observed that the Quadrex Findings and Quadrex Questions were in many instances repetitous. The same train of though by the auditor, appeared in many findings and questions.
3.3 The 19 Quadrex Findings and 22 Quadrex Questions, as reviewed by the C&I/ Electrical Lead Reviewer, are acceptable for adequacy of resolution.
Allen R. Johnson Quadrex Lead Reviewer, Controls and Instrumentation / Electrical Discipline cc:
U. Potapous H. Phillips
I
.. _ ~..
P7 I
.I REMTED CORAESPoNDENC8 J
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
e C
AUG 8 tiga > g BETORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARE noCKarms a
- La%3cn nam
,2l uct.um gp>r.
s In the Matter of 5
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
Dcchet Nos.
5 50-499 OL 5
(South Texas Project, Units 5
1 and 2) 5 STATE OF TEXAS'S MOTION FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD TO REQUIRE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to 10 C.T.R. section 2.720 (h) (2) (ii) and section
- 2. 790 (e), the State of Texas hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff to answer the interrogatories attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 and to produce the documents requested therein.
The purpose of the Phase II inquiry is to examine both the handling of the Quadrex Report by Houston Lighting & Power Company and the substance of the report itself, and to examine the adequacy of the Staff's position on hurricane design.
The NRC Staf f conducted one investigation which led to the release of the Quadrex Report to the NRC Staf f and the Board (I&E 81-28), two investigations regarding the handling of the Quadrex Report (I&E 82-02 and I&E 82-12), and various investigations regarding the substance of the Quadrax Report (82-12 being the first such investigation).
Based on these investigations, the NRC Staff reached conclusions about the Quadrex findings regarding notification /
I3
$h5d$bkiC!bkhbks fp t.
i FIR g'
W AW'
~
,f reportability under 10 C.F.R.
section 50.55 (e), safety significance, generic implications, and' adequacy of resolution.
1 Based on documents reviewed by Texas to date, the positions I
of various NRC personnel and of NRC personnel and HL&P personnel seem to be at variance regarding the import of the Quadrex findings and the factual context of the Quadrax handling.
As to hurricane design, Texas claims its interrogatories are relevant because they will elicit responses that will aid the Licensing Board in assessing the contention that the plant has not been designed to withstand the highest recorded wind velocities.
The Board has recognized that the Staff's position merits full exploration.
See Memorandum and Order (Ruling Upon CCANP's Motion to Adopt Contentions of CEU), dated Oct. 15, 1982 at pages 10-14.
Intertwined with the interrogatories are document requests.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
section 2.744, therefore, Exhibits 1 and 2 are being served upon the Executive Director for Operations, with a cover letter of which a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
To enable Texas to better prepare for the licensing hearings l
and assist the Board in the development of the most complete record for a proper decision, it is necessary for Texas to understand the positions taken by the NRC and to examine the available documentation supporting those positions.
For the above and foregoing reasons, Texas urges the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to grant this motion.
Respectfully submitted, JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas DAVID R. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General a
JIM MATHEWS Assistant Attorney General Chief, Environmental Protection Division Gas 8&
BRIAN BERWICK (SSN 02255500)
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 475-4143 ATTORNEY FOR THE State of Texas 9
9 9
- e O
6
- O RWM
we.
N)
N
- 024u S,' -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR
.M,.*
3 4 ek CERTITICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of State of Texas's jr Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Require Nuclear Regu y*
Commission Staf f to Answer Interrogatories, with Exhibits 1,2, and 3, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 3 d. day of August, 1983, except that service on the single-asterisked people was by federal express and on the double asterisked people was by hand.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esg.
William S. Jordan, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Harmon and Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street, NW Board Panel Suite 506 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20006 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
- Dr. James C. Lamb, III Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Administrative Judge Axelrad 313 Woodhaven Road 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NS Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Washington, D.C.
20036
- Ernest E. Hill
- Robert C. Perlis Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Legal Director University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi P.O. Box 806, L-123 Washington, D.C.
20555 Livermore, CA 94550 Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Boar Mrs. Peggy Buchorn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Executive Director Washington, D.C.
10555 Citizens for Equitable Utilities Atomic Safety and Licensing Route 1, Box 1684 Appeal Board Brazoria, Texas 77411 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Washington, D.C.
20555 2207 D Nueces Austin, Texas 78705 MA t?
b1,4 **d Frian L.
Berwick l
8 7.~h
t-119fNf A per.m.n ennnrenweve, hj Exhibit 1 to g.
s' AU3 g C
l y;e l
UNITED STATES OT AMERICA 6
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
asa BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD ru f I -
i l
In the phtter of 5
I 5
MOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, 5
Docket Nos. 50-4 98 I
5 I
5 l
l (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 5
i l
STATE OF TEXAS'S FIRST SET OF I
l INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS i
TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STATT ON QUADREX These interrogatories are to be answered by NRC personnel i
l 1
l with knowledge of the facts inquired about.
Such personnel are l
l to be designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
Each l
I interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in writing.
l I
Each person participating in answering any question is to sign j
l an affidavit or affirmation as to the truth and correctness of the answers he participated in answering.
A copy of the answers is to be served on all parties within 14 days after service of l
l the interrogatories on the NRC.
(
\\
1.
The NRC commenced an audit (or other form of review)
[
of B&R engineering on S eptember 29, 1980, according to ML&P documents.
Please identify and provide a.
Any reports resulting from this audit.
f b.
Any reponses to the audit by either ML&P or Brown and Root.
c.
A description of the methodology of this audit.
2.
I&E Report 81-37 contains a list of eleven deficiencies g
MM k8s I
y l
l
. - ~. -......
I 1
(I&E 81-37 at 7).
Please providet i
I a.
All Applicant repcrts to the NRC on such deficiencies.
I b.
NRC Staff identification of those seven which were i
considered design deficiencies.
c.
NRC Staff's position on whether each of the seven i
deficiencies identified in 2b were ' released for construction".
i 1
l d.
NRC Staf f's position as to whien of the deficiencies i
i required ML&P to notify the NRC of the deficiency.
[
1 L
e.
For those deficiencies requiring notification to the t
j NRC, the source for that requirement and how that requirement specifically applied to the deficiencies requiring notification.
i
(
3.
I&E Report 81-37 states that "a special NRC inspection i
of the design engineering organization was requested on May 27, l
1 1981." (I&E 81-37 at 7-8).
Please identify and provide:
L l
a.
Any reports resulting from this inspection.
j b.
The response, if any, to this inspection by either j
1 i
HL&P and/or Brown and Root.
l c.
The methodology of this inspection.
I l
d.
Any previous or subsequent inspection, evaluations, l
t investigations, or other NRC examination of the design engineering j
l j
organization of B&R and/or HL&P through August 1981 not contained i
in I&E reports served on the State of Texas.
[
3 4.
Please provide any Systematic Assessment of Licensee i
Performanet issued since I&E 81-37.
l 5.
On May 8,1981, did anyone at the NRC besides Mr. Sells i
l 1
or possibly Mr. Phillips know that the Quadrex review was nearing completion?
I !
l*
l j
4%3 i
l
i i*
i a
i 6.
Please define the term " performance specifications" as j
used in 10 C.T.R. section 50.55 (e) (1) (iv) and provide the source i
l for this definition.
I I
J 7.
Please provide a copy of the guidance on 50.55(e) and l
other reporting requirements (e.g. significant events) provided to f
r
)
the Applicants on March 11, 1980.
(See Staff Exhibit No. 52, l
t I&E Report 80-04 at 10-11) f O.
Is it the NR0' Staff's position that if NL&P had turned the Quadrex Report over to the NRC Staff on May 8, 1981, the l
Staff would have in turn provided copies to I
i i
a.
the ASLB l
i j
b.
the Commission c.
Please provide an. explanation for your answers to l
I Sa and 8b.
l 9.
If design and engineering is not being carried out as
(
l l
required by IEEE, l
a.
is such a deficiency a violation of NRC requirements?
j l
Please explain your answer.
[
f j
b.
If the, answer to 9a is "Yes," where is this requirement i
documented?
c.
Is the license holder obligated to notify the NRC 1
l 1
of such a deficiency?
t i
j d.
If the answer to 9c is "Yes," where is this requirement j
to notify documented?
4 e.
Is such a deficiency's se subject to notification j
within 90.5$ (e) requirements?
Please explain your answer.
\\
I I ;
I i
I k %'&
L l
l i
L
i i
j i
l 10.
If design and engineering is not being carried out l
l as required by ANSI N45.2, l
a.
is such a deficiency a violation of NRC requirements?
1 Please explain your answer.
[
l l
b.
If the answer to 10a is "Yes," where is this requirement i
I L
documented?
I c.
Is the license holder obligated to notify the NRC f
of such deficiency?
l d.
If the answer to loc is "Yes," where is this requirement M
to notify documented?
]
1 e.
Is such a deficiency per se subject to notification i
1 within 50.55 (e) requirements?
Please explain your answer.
f Did the NRC receive.any reports pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 11.
j Part 21 based on the Quadrex Report findings?
If so please identify i
]
and produce all such reports and NRC reponses to those reports.
I 12.
Please specify what obligations Applicants had on May j
i i
7,1981 to report information to the NRC.
Please provide citations j
to the rules, regulations, case law, or other sources for these i:
obligations.
1 13.
Please state generally the NRC Staff position on the i
purpose of 10 C.T.R. section 50.55 (e)
[
l j
14.
In the NRC Staff's view, what is the relationship I
between technical adequacy, as that term is used in the Quadrex f
{
Report, and safety?
In this answer, please address whether a r
i design found not to be technically
- adequate could still be l
1 i
I assumed safe by the NRC.
I j
4 i
r l
4 L
j
. - +,.
j I
j t
j 15.
Please describe exactly how Mr. Herr and Mr. Phillips i
i came to see the Quadrex Report in August 1981.
16.
Please identify and provide all records of contact between the NRC and HL&P regarding release of the Quadrex Report f
l r
a.
the NRC Staff 1
b.
the ASLB-(including Mr. Reis' contacts with j
t Applicants' attorneys) 17.
When did Region IV WRC receive a copy of the Quadrex l
1 i
t j
Report?
Please detail who received the copy (les), how they received the copy (ies), and from whom they received the copyl;es).
i 1
]
i
)
l s
(
l f
1 4
I I
i t
i i
i i
h
- l l
5-t l
I l
A tas l
I i
j f
{
i 4
I l,
18.
On December 15, 1981, William J. Dircks, Executive l
.l Director for Operations, NRC, sent a memorandum to Commissioner l
l Peter A. Mradford on the subject of " Chronology Related to the l
l Quadrex Report on South Texas."
Attached to that memorandum i
j is a chronological List of Events.
I 1
h j
a.
Who prepared the chronology?
l l
I l
b.
Please identify and provide all documents I
supporting the chronology as set forth.
l c.
Now did Mr. Male (Staff, Region IV) become aware l
i l
of the Quadrex Report?
i i
l d.
Please identify and provide all records of l
Mr. Collins' contacts.on August 27, 1981 with (1) Mr. Oprea 1
(2) Mr. DeYoung l
(3) Mr. Case l
l e.
Please identify and provide all of Mr. Hale's s
records of his review of the Quadrex Report from August 31 to l
September 3, 1981.
[
I I
f.
Did Mr,. Hale take a copy of the Quadrex Report l
i with him when he finished his review?
i 1
{
g.
If the answer to 18f. is "Yes," to whom did l
t l
Mr. Hale deliver such copy (ies) at Region IV?
[
i l
l I
J, i
i 4
?
4 f
I r
i i
! l AIS l
i 3
l.
h.
Please ide.1tify and provide all records of I
I Mr. Hale's briefing to Region IV personnel on September 4, 1981, including but not limited to all notes taken by participants in i
i l
l that briefing, all notes prepared for that briefing by Mr. Male, 4
all memorandums written as a result of that briefing, telephone I
minutes resulting from such briefing, and similar documentation j
of the briefing contents and the response by NRC personnel to I
the briefing.
l r
j i.
Please identify all Region IV personnel present j
l at the september 4, 1981 briefing.
l l
j.
Please provide the basis including all documentary support for the statement that "Quadrax did not l
l appear to identify any significant items not already known to i
i the NRC."
{
l k.
'Did the Region IV personnel present at the i
j September 4, 1981 briefing receive a copy of the Quadrax Report
[
1 i
at that time?
1
[
]
1.
. lease identify and produce all records of the i
i HL&P cverview provided to Region IV on September 8, 1981.
L m.
Please identify all personnel of HL&P, Region IV, i
or anyone else present at the September 8,.1981 overview meeting.
I n.
Did HL&P provide copies of the Quadrex Report i
l to NRC at the September 8, 1981 overview meeting?
I
! t r
I t
1 1
[
~
4 J
l
~..
l a
i 4
[
j o.
If the answer to interrogatory 18n. is "Yes,"
l I
to whom were such copies provided 7 1l I
p.
For the persons named in answer llo., please
}
detail what they did regarding the Quadrex Report between 1
September I and September 28, 1981.
Please identify and j
provide all records of their activities.
19.
Please identify and provide all records of Mr. Sells j
on his meeting with Mr. Goldberg the week of May 13, 1981 l
]
regarding the Quadrax Report.
l 20.
Please identify and provide all records of Mr. Sells' i
i review of the Quadrex Report in September 1981 including the l
i I
l I
chart Mr. Sells prepared.
(see I&E Report 82-02 at 7.)
L 21.
Please identify and provide all records of Mr. Sells' conversation (s) regarding the Quadrex Report with Mr. Phillips 1
i i
or anyone else at NRC between the time Mr. Sells discussed the i
l Report with Mr. Goldberg the week of May 13, 1981 and the time-(
/
Mr. Phillips saw the Quadrex Report in August 1981.
(
22.
Please identify and provide the investigators' (inspectors) notes from the investigation which produced !&E 81-28 and which
{
t I
j also relates to the discovery of the Quadrex Report by the
')
investigator and inspector.
I i
l 23.
Please provide a copy of the February 1982 request (fromRegionIVtoHL&Ptoprovideinformationontheirtransition i
t i
i
{
program pursuant to 10 C.F.R. section 50.54 (f).
(See NUREG-0948 I
l at 111.)
j l
I
! l l
I hth
\\
24.
Why did Mr. Sells believe the ASLB should see the l
Quadrex Report?
25.
Why did Mr. Reis and/or Mr. Gutierre: agree?
26.
If Mr. Reis or Mr. Gutierre: did receive a copy of the Quadrex Report prior to its release on September 28, 1981 by the Applicants, please detail how Mr. Reis or Mr. Gutierrez came to receive a copy.
Please provide all records of the 1
process by which Mr. Reis or Mr. Gutierrez received a copy.
27.
please specify all requests by HL&P for approval to perform construction at STNP in the period a.
January 1, 1981 to May 8, 1981.
b.
May 8, 1991 through the date on which the NRC i
Region IV of fice first. received a copy of the Quadrex Report.
l Please provide all records documenting these requests and NRC I
responses.
c.
please explain the methodology by which NRC arrived at a decision to approve or disapprove such requests.
28.
Is it the NRC's position that the Region IV Staff would not have been influenced by the Quadrex Report in making the decisions on requests identified in response to interrogatory 27 had the Quadrex Report been provided to the NRC by HL&P on May 8, 19817 i
=. l 2
Agas
...m...
29.
Please summarize for the NRC review of the Quadrex Report to dat**
a.
the total NRC hours spent.
b.
approximate cost.
c.
number of NRC personnel involved.
j 30.
Please identify and provide all records which document the NRC response to the Chronology submitted by Mr. Lanny Sinkin I
I I
to the NRC on the alleged conspiracy by ML&P to withhold the
}
Quadrex Report.
Please include records of all meetings held to discuss the chronology and all* communications with Region IV regarding the chronology.
Please also include any records of i
Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Stello, Mr. Collins, Mr. James Liebernan, and Mr. Snezak regarding the NRC response to the Chronology submitted j
L by Mr. Sinkin.
I 31.
Please produce the letter from William Dircks dated January 11, 1982 comparing the chronology submitted by Mr. Sinkin l
with the chronology prepared by the NRC.
32.
Please state the date on which the investigation hich produced 1&E 82-02 began.
[
33.
Please identify and produce all records of Mr. John Collins regarding the initiation and conduct of the NRC investigation to determine whether or not ML&P willfully withheld the Quadrex l
Report from the NRC.
i
\\
i [
l hth
'tt
... _......~
c l
f'~~
34.
Please provide copies of all correspondence, notes, I
t investigative interviews, or other documents related to the l
investigation which produced I&E 82-02.
,,, 3 5.
Please identify "Dr. Key" (I&E 82-02 at 13).
36.
Please produce the NRC letter /NL&P dated August 11, 1982 referenced in NUREG-0948 at 20.
37.
Please identify and produce all notes, memoranda, and other records of the meetings between NRC personnel and ML&P I
personnel held pursuant to I&E investigation 82-12 as referenced in NUREG-0948 at 5 and otherwise.
38.
Please identify and produce all notes, r moranda, and j
other records of the in-of fice assessment of Quadrex related documents as referenced in NUREG-0948 at 5 and otherwise.
39.
Please specify the process the NRC followed (or continues I
to follow) in' addressing the Quadrex findings which remained I
e open as of the issuance of NUREG-0948 Appendix A.
f i
l I
9 I !
I 5
b I
L i
i w.
1 1
i l
40.
Please provide all records not previously provided j
^
l in response to the foregoing interrogatories which document the j
NRC response to the Quadrex Report, excluding the detailed l
review of the substance of the Quadrex findings as documented i
l 1
in NURIG-0948 but including (though not limited to) all responses I
of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Ste11o, and Mr. Lieberman not previously
{
I 1
i provided.
i i
i
- 41. a.
Is it the'NRC position that the findings in the l
Quadrex Report as of May.8, 1981 (i.e. prior to any Bechtel, NRC, or other in depth evaluation) did have potential implications for the balance of STNP's design and construction?
i l
b.
What were those potential implications?
f I
l 42.
Please provide copies of all NRC testimony to Congress
.i related to the Quadrex Report, including the testimony of 1
I i
Mr. Dircks and the question and answer portion of such appearance.
1 i
)
43.
Please identify each person the NRC Staff intends to l
call as a witness at the Phase II hearings and state the substance
[
1 of the testimony 4
of each witness.
j 44.
Please identify and produce each document upon which l
l the NRC' relies as support for its position as stated in its
{
i i
]
response to this first set of interrogatories.
(Where regulations, l
legal precedents, or other published material is the source, f
citations will be sufficient.)
f I
I
~..
i i
l l
l l
l L l l
d'I 3 i
I l
1
.... -. ~
45.
Please provide a copy of NUREG 0302 (the revision applicable on May 7-8, 1981).
46.
Please provide a copy of Reg. Guides 1.116, 1.123, 1.28, 1.30, 1.64, 1.74, and 1.88 (the revisions applicable on May 7-8, 1981).
47.
Please identify all I&E Reports issued on the South Texas Nuclear Project since the last such report admitted into evidence in this proceeding.
48.
Please identify and produce a copy of all other inspection reports on STNP not'previously provided in response to these interrogatories issued by the NRC on STNP since the close of the record in Phase I.
49.
Please identify and produce all records of Mr. Sells' contacts with Mr. Goldberg regarding the Quadrex study prior to May 7, 1981.
50.
Please provide a copy of Wash 1283 and Wash 1309 as of May 7, 1981.
51.
Why did the NRC conduct a staff review of the Quadrex Report?
52.
Did the Staff review of the Quadrex Report include a determination of whether notification / reporting requirements other than 10 C.T.R. eaction 50.55 (e) had been met?
53.
If the answer to interrogatory 52 is "Yes," why were no other determinations made of compliance with notification / reporting requirements?' 8%2
u..._.----.....
54.
For each of the six items from the Quadrex Report which the Staff says were reported to the NRC by HL&P (See NUREG-0948 at 19-20), please provides-a.
the position of the NRC Staff on whether the NRC should have been notified of that item pursuant to 10 C.F.R. section 50.55 (e).
b.
the particular clause (s) in 550.55 (e) requiring notification for those the NRC Staff asserts required notification.
c.
a detailed explanation of why the clause (s)
. J.
noted in 54b. applied.to that finding.
d.
whether each finding was a final design released for construction.
55.
State the name, position, and full working address (not post of fice box number), of each person who participated in answering any of these interrogatories, and specify by number and letter wach interrogatory and each subsection thereof which each such person participated in answering.
h%
. w. w-....
c.:: ~ ;-.:./"T " k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
2r*4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/,sJ
~]
D:n C *?. y., -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
3 stt
%e
,. f,'.,((f4 In the Matter of 5
~
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER S
Docket Nos. 50-498 COMPANY, ET AL S
50-499 5
(South Texas Project, Units 5
1 and 2)
S STATE OF TEXAS'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO NRC STAFF ON CONTENTION 4 These interrogatories are to be answered by NRC' personnel
. with knowledge of the f acts incuired about.
Such personnel are to be designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
Each interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in writing.
Each person participating in answering any question is to sign an af fidavit or affirmation as to the truth 'and correctness of the answers he participated in answering.
A copy of the answers is to be served on all parties within 14 days after service of the interrogatories on the NRC.
1.
Does the NRC contend that there are no recorded hurricanes
}
a.
in the Gulf of Mexico
- b. in the North Atlantic Ocean in which the fastest mile wind speed, 30 feet above ground has been higher than 125 miles per' hour?
D hts 3 s
4(Q M
5 i
r.
ad.w.---
2.
Please define " fastest mile wind speed" as used by the NRC.
3.
If the answer to interrogatory 1 is no, a.
please identify hurricanes whose fastest mile wind speed, 30 feet above' ground exceeded 125 mph and provide the speed for each hurricane.
b.
please explain NRC acceptance of 125 mph as the design wind velocity for the fastest mile wind speed at STNP.
c.
please identify all studies or documents relied upon in answering 3a and 3b.
4.
If the answer to interrogatory 1 is yes, please provide the NRC's position on the fastest mile wind speed for each of the following:
a.
The hurricane on September 27 through October 6, 1949 making landfall near' Freeport, Texas, b.
Hurricane Carla (1961) c.
Hurricane Bilda (1964) d.
Hurricane Betsy (1965) e.
Hurricane Celia (1970) f.
Hurricane Allen (1980) g.
Hurricane Anita 5.
Please identify all studies or documents relied upon in answering interrogatory 4.
4 2-kE2h
_s-
--s-
i 6.a.
What is the peak hurricane wind gust value used by
-Applicants in designing STNP7 b.
Where is this value documented in Applicants' filings with the NRC7 Please provide a copy of said documention.
l c.
Please identif'y all studies or documents relied upon by the NRC in accepting the Applicants' value.
7.
Does the NRC, contend that.there are no recorded hurricanes
- a. in the Gulf of Mexico
- b. in the North Atlantic Ocean in which the peak wind gust has been higher than the value given in response to interrogatery-6a?
8.
If the answer to interrogatory 7 is no,
- a. please identify the hurricanes whose gusts exceeded the value given in answer to interrogatory 6 and the highest gust for each hurricane identified.
4
- b. please explain NRC acceptance of the value given in answer to interrogatory 6.
- c. please identify all studies or documents relied upon in answering 8a and 8b.
9.
What is the NRC position on the extent of the " surround-ing area" required to be considered by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 27 Please explain the basis for the NRC's position.
}
l i
i,
N
.c..~.c...
10.
Would the design of STNP differ if the Applicants had selected a f astest mile speed of 185 mph rather than 125 mph?
If so, please describe generally how the design would have differed.
If not, please explain why the design would not differ.
11.
Would the design of STNP differ if the Applicants had selected a peak gust value of 200 mph rather than the value given in response to interrogatbry 67 If so, please describe generally how the design would have differed.
If not, please explain why the design would not differ.
12.
Please' identify each witness the NRC intends to call on Contention 4 and summarize the testimony of each.
13.
Is it the NRC's position that having designed parts of STNP to withstand missiles carried by tornado winds of 360 mph, these same parts of STNP are therefore designed to withstand a fastest mile wind speed of 360 mph?
Please explain.
14.a.
What is the heaviest rainfall the NRC has considered in reviewing and approving the design of STNP7 b.
Please identify all studies or documents the NRC relied upon in answering. interrogatory 14a.
15.a.
What is the highest flood crest on the' Colorado River the NRC has considered in the design of STNP7 b.
Please identify all studies or documents the NRC
~
relied upon in answering interrogatory 15a.
.. d 8]b
g g. En,h m hhh g h 16.a.
What is the highest hurricane storm surge the NRC has considered in reviewing and approving the design of STNP7 b.
Please identify all studies and documents the NRC relied upon in answering interrogatory 16a.
17.
State the name, position, and full working address (not post office box number), of each person who participated in answering any of these interrogatories, and specify by number and letter each interrogatory and each subsection thereof which each such person participated in answering.
e o e
e o
O G.
m.
.-- -.. _. ~
.... EXHIBIT 3
's
=
.g
-.s-The Attorney General of Texas August 2, 1983 JIM M ATTOX Attorney General suore ne ceurs suito.n; Mr. William J.
Dircks
= o. so 12548 Executive Director for Operations a sun Tz. 7s7ts. 254s u
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a si a741367 Washington, D.C.
20555 Telecopie-512#4754 266 4
Re Docket Nos. 50-498 50-499
'607 Main St. Suite 1400 Danas.TX 75201 4709 2ic742 au,
Dear Mr. D2.rcks:
Fursuant to 10 C.F.R.
secticn 2.744, the State ce2. Areerta Ave.. suite iso of Texas hereby requests the production of the y' ' T*g,s4 records and documents described in Exhibits 1 and 2 5 S to this letter.
Exhibits 1 and 2 are essentially interrogatories, intertwined with document requests.
- 22c oaaas Ave.sw.ie 2:2 For your convenience, the next paragraphs specify oeston.Tx noc24ses where the document requests appear.
Only the
'3'550**'8 document requests are addressed to you, as section '
2.744 seems to require.
C6 Breasway Suite 312 The Exhibit 1 interrogatories which request
.secoen. Tx. 794ct.3479 m47 523a documents are as follows:
Numbers la.,
lb.,
2a.,
3a., 3d.,
4, 7,
11, 16, 18 b'., 18d., 18e., 18h., 18j.,
181., 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27b., 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 2209 N Te9tn $uite B
. eauee_ Tx. 7esos.ises 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50.
ai25a2 4547 The Exhibit 2 interrogatories which request documents are as follows:
Numbers 5, 6b.,
6c.,
A-wa,n piara. suite 4co san Anten.o. Tx. 782cs-2797 8c., 14b., 15a., and 16a.
512t225 4191 A copy of this letter and its attachements are being sent to the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board
.Ecusioccortuaiir and all counsel.
af ferr94tive Action Empicyer e,
MD w
~.
a d dr ~ ::m.,
... ~.
....~.-
t f '
Mr. William J. Dircks l
August 2, 1983 Page 2 Thank you for your help in responding to this request.
Sincerely,
{ g t lie J tiL-Brian Berwick Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.
O. Box 125(S Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 475-4143 BB:kh Enclosures cc:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board All counsel O
e 9
e t-Go AS3
@fs " q p r u. m n o m %. n _:'j m
_.... ~... ~ _
/AplAs~
sWP'/w a
,C g/ UNinD STATES OF AMERICA u
7/22/85 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 483' In the Matter of
(
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
(
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL (South Texas Project,
(
50-499 OL Units 1 and 2)
)
CCANP MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASLB RULING
. QUASHING SUBPOENA FOR MICHAEL E POWELL On July 19, 1985, during hearings being held in Phase II of this proceeding, the ASLB granted Applicants' motion to quash a subpoena for Michael Powell issued previously at the request of CCANP. CCANP hereby moves the ASLB to reconsider the decision to quash the Powell subpoena. CCANP contends that it has the right to call Mr. Powell in this proceeding and that there is no ground for the ASLB to take away that right.
As grounds for the reconsideration CCANP seeks, CCANP offers the following:
1.
The decision on the Powell subpoena was made unde; pressure because all parties were trying to get to the argument over NRC witnesses to be called and time available for the hearing had almost expired. As a consequence, CCANP did not have an opportunity to clearly point out the unique,
- material, relevant, and admissible testimony CCANP sought from Mr. Powell.
CCANP will provide herein a more comprehensive case for not quashing the Powell subpoena.
- 2. A central concern of Contention 9 in this proceeding is:
i
" Applicants' f ailure to notify the NRC (Region IV) of
'qq the Quadrex Report, alid of many findings beyond those g
actually reported, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />...." Memoranoum ana Order (Phase II Hearing on Quadrex-Report Issues) dated 7-February 26, 1985 at 24 (emphasis added).
N M h c c m ;,,,,, t g g e r 3 v o r g Dr/APat/50-+46cr gq 1
S 7
c-R 5(p7-3hd$D
~'
O O.
>The Applicants have consistently mairtained that Mr. Powell and the IRC reviewed only the three findings which Mssrs. Goldberg, Sumpter, and Robertson identified as potentially reportable. See e.g. Motion of Applicants to Quash Subpoenas of Mr. Cloin Robertson, Mr. Jesse Poston, and Mr. Michael Powell dated July 18, 1985 at 9 ("neither the IRC, not its individual members, reviewed the Quadrex Report to determine itn reportability, other thgr1 t he t,h ree i t em n, wh i ch wo re r ep
r e* * *, o at s hn t st o.
lere w o l I I e. lel M r. r:,,rs t;rn.o re :
"(2) Concerning computer program (codes) verification - that the verification program lacks visibility to the user whether or not the program versions in use have been verified." Telephone Minutes, May 8, 1981 at 1 (emphasis added).
In the Quadrex Report, at page 4-14, Finding 4.2.2.1 2
pp
w '. w a -.
bontains the Most Serious findings in the computer code area. The three Most Serious findings expected to seriously impact plant licensability are:
"(a) Numerous programs listed in the Program Status Summary as having heavy usage on STP with no Computer Program Verification Report (CPVR) in p_laco (noo Question C/M - 'l )
(Is) Proced u ra, ST p-pr'-017 &mr5 :,,1 y e.ps i r e v o r i f i s:n i l ',,is
', f 8
i f: L lie pre j e,; t.
222 ~22 '.*12 - f " I a L"'l p t t,#1 r,i rti es ;
ter,wo /" r It application of the code rather t h a ts t.he code itceIf thal really determines whether a safety-related verification is needed. The basis used by B&R f or determination of safety-related is not sufficient; for example, some safety-related calculations are not directly related to safety-related systems (see Question R-7). B& R's practice is not typical of industry prac,tice (see Question C/M-8)
(c) Because. of the highly modular nature of most computer programs, it is not adequate to assume that an entire code is verified if a portion of that code has not been verified.
(see Question C/M-13). The B&R CPVR does not indicate which options of a particular code have been verified."
There are clearly three discrete findings based on separate Quadrex questions and addressing visibility (a),
safety-related versus non-safety-related determinations (b), and whether in fact all the programs that should be verified have been verified (c).
The Powell telephone report to Crossman on May 8 refers only to visibility, finding 4.2.2.1(a). The Bechtel Task Force Report, marked for identification as Applicants' Exhibit No. 63, has a table on page 4-9 which records the potentially reportable computer code finding as 4.2.2.1.(a).
NUREG-0948, the NRC evaluation of the Quadrex Report, at page 19, records the NRC view of the findings notified to the NRC. Once again, only 4.2.2.1(a) appears in the computer code section. In his prefiled testimony for Phase II, Mr. Goldberg addressed the three findings notified to the NRC and referred to'the computer finding as 4.2.2.1(a). See Goldberg Tes timony a t 28, 1. 9; 35, 1. 6.
kh
- a.
--.e. <.. w.. -
The May 12 minutes of the IRC, however, make it quite clear that the IRC considered "several concerns regarding B r. R 's approach to computer program (code) verification." CCANP Exhibit No. 9 9 (marked for identification) at 1 (emphasis added). These concerns were:
(1) codes " unverified at the present time" and the possibility these codes were in use, which is 4.2.2.1(c);
(2) "In addition, the verification program lacks visibility," which is 4.2.2.1(a); and (3)
"how computer codes are controlled by B&R procedures with regard to safety-related applications," which is 4.2.2.1(b).
In this area, CCANP seeks to question Mr. Powell on three points:
A. His discussions on May 8 with the HL&P review team as to what would be reported to the NRC and how those reports would be worded.
B. What the I RC._ d i d in fact review from the Quadrex Report.
C.
How the decisions of the IRC were made regarding potential notification to the NRC of Quadrex findings st.b sequen t to May 8.
3.
In its February 26th Order, the Board stated that the current competence of HL&P in regard to 50.55(e) reporting "may represent the most significant of the Quadrex reportability questions raised by CCANP" and that the "leve competence of the persons charged with that responsibility, are matters appropriate for adjudicatory consideration in Phase II." Memorandum and Order 4
.o.--m.
O O
kt 20.
By examining Mr. Powell's current views on whether the Quadrex Report was dealt with appropriately in relation to 5 0.5 5 (e), CCANP can develop a record on the point the Board considered to be perhaps the most significant.
While the Applicants are producing Mr. Wisenburg, Mr.
Wisenburg reviews notification determinations made by the IRC.
See Wisenburg prefiled testimony ("WT"), at 2,
1.
22-24. The central place where evaluations for notification are made is the IRC. WT at 4,1. 19-20. Mr. Powell is chairman of the IRC today, WT at 5,1.14, just as he was at the time the Quadrex study was being performed, WT at 6,
- 1. 22-23.
Given that Mr. Powell played a unique and significant role in the HL&P established process'during January - May, 1981 regarding what would be notified to the NRC pursuant to 50.55(e);
that Mr. Powell performed that role on at least one occasion prior to the submission of the final Quadrex Report, see CCANP Exhibit Nos. 94, 95; that he performed that role in meeting with Goldberg, Sumpter, and Robertson on May 8; that he performed that role while reviewing at 'least five separate findings from the Quadrex Report to determine their notifiability; and that he continues to perform that role today makes Mr. Powell a unique, relevant, material, and necessary witness.
CCANP contends its right to call Mr. Powell is clear and unambiguous. While the NRC Staf f may well be concerned that Mr.
Powell's testimony may be embarrassing to the NRC, that concern is irrelvant to this proceeding.
hD
ew-.--..
~
O O
For the above and foregoing reasons, CCANP moves the ASLB to reconsider and deny Applicants's motien to quash the subpoena for Mr. Powell.
Resectfulyl submitted,
/-
t % / '
f' Lanny'Sinkin Representative for Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.
3022 Porter St., N.W.
- 304 Washington, D.C.
20008 (202) 966-2141 Dated: July 22, 1985 Austin, Texas
- w 6
A 89
i..w.-.
Us.16i.D
'a!...I Li-r...w. 6..
g I
V I Lbly e l ui r.'
CUMM 10.Adu I ILIC L LS '.l s o
DLI Ulit. I i li. A I L'f il L Le - [ I.
alIb LIClif!UITju UO4ihD In the flottm of
(
llul G l'Ot! LIUlil lf l0 v.flD t
Doci.et flot. 50- I';u L'i.
)
50-4W LL (South To::A
- Project, t
Units 1 atol 2)
'r '
G@.11LE.I.G.OlG IA UGlWlGG Iherebycertifythatcopiesof-CCANPMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONOh ASLB RUI.ING QUASHING SUBPOENA FOR M.E. POWELL vere served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class postage paid, to the following individuals and entities on July 23, 1985.
+1 har 1 cs 1.ra.hhoo f trr, Crclui r e De l,.n bc r ut c!.. ! quare Lt airman Aunt. Atty. Ucn.
Ati.iic Mirty ond I.i cetn s t a irl 003: d LlaLe of i c:: a r.
li. b. flue l e er R..'2u l a tcr y Com.i.i c al e.n En vi ronin t l. Protirction Sta.j 1*540, Guattol Washington, D.C.
2uCOS P.
O.
Du::
J Austin. T o.: a 's 70711 I? r. Jaenen C.
L oitib. III i ii;i.. i ni st r a t i vo J udg ;
+Decuto fluss Paric, Ecquire
.'1.
Wooijhaven Rc..w Oftice' of thu Laic. Lug. Dir.
i.h & p e l Hi11. Flor th Co. ol ) ria 2'/b14 Lt. 5.
licc i ecr fiittaul atory Comm.
W0nhincton, D.C.
2955$
- FredertcP J.
Shcn
.~.dnei n t ui t u t i
- e J u d g ?
- Jack h.
fic.J.nen. I.3 quire U.
b.
fluc l ear Hogvi c tory Con..nt soi on 1615 L 5treet, 11"1, suito 1000 Wu hington, D.C.
Oig5L Wash:noton, D.L.
20006 ffoibert Schwor:, Esquire l'al. er and Bo L t..
Men. Pecqy buchorn
~*00 Urie Shel l Pla:a E nicut.i ve Di ruc tor, C. [~. U.
He,u u t on, To:: os 77002 Route 1.
Do: 1000 Br an ur t,., l er: e c 77422 Alu...ic Cafely an<l I.icensing Ed.
U.L.
t h i _1.
..r R r. o t t.i t or y Comer..
Lh 1 I 3.t.
5.
.lortf au. IIL, Ltq.
Waahangton, D.C.
2nGb5 11 et n.on, Iin t ' -
?.< J. r iitin
. n<>l S ht rcoi, 41. W.. Ln3 t' r= 400 id 0.n l c bM s'Lv oreil Licensing Wa=hington, D.C.
2.io11 spp e 31 Do.rd i 1. S. t sus.1 rar herou' a t ery Coman.
i v. t Coy unchington, D.C.
.:0553 S i s% Caca Or t.
Doc l.ot a nt.) and Service Section Son on t.on s o. Te:: co
/P 33 Offict' of t hu Cecr etary fic y 6,il t17 t u t o ll. S.
fluci r3ar f.espit a tcry Comm.
1 N.i i V..i. cil i n f.' l d o.
Wechington.
D.C.
20055 Or. / Dra:o4
. '.... F. j r.,
it.,.
71 t h.l !
0 St%+
v.m_...__..._
Lonair nl is m.; -
.. _ _.