ML20205A819

Response to ASLB 850226 Memorandum & Order Re Findings in Quadrex Rept Considered Reportable Per 10CFR50.55(e). Significance of Findings Sufficient to Reach Conclusions Re Mgt Competence.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20205A819
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/22/1985
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-689 OL, NUDOCS 8504260118
Download: ML20205A819 (5)

Text

k& ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -00Cxtri@E/05 NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of (

15 AMi24 40:51

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND ( Docket Nos. [ppygg ,

' POWER COMPANY, ET AL. >- OccMittac{g..

gsggy;g

-(South Texas Project, ( BRANCH Units 1.and 2) (

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER .(CCANP)

.BESPQNSE IQ @SL@ MEMQB6UDUM GUD QBDEB QE EEEBUSBY 2gr 128@

I. Introduction On February 26, 1985, the ASLB in this proceeding issued its Memorandum and Order (Phase II Hearings on Quadrex-Report

-Issues) CHereinafter " February 26th Order"J. In said Order, the ASLB provided CCANP the opportunity to identify findings in the

-Quadrex Report, other than those identified in the Order 'itself (including :the report as a whole), which CCANP considers potentially reportable under 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e), but which were not in fact' reported by the Applicants to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the receipt of the Quadrex Report. Id. at 24-2S. CCANP's herein responds to the Board's Order.

11. Potentially Reportable Quadrex Findinos While the February 26th Order reflects that the OE.LB reviewed CCANP's motion to iile additional contentions dated November 21, 1981, Id. at 12-14, the ASLB did not recount CCANP's position that:

"The Quadrex Corporation chose a ranking method ior their findings which included Most Serious Findings.

-Quadrex . defined Most Serious Findings as, in part,

'those that pose a serious threat to plant

~~

• -The February 26th Order also carries on an error in the  :

Quadrex Report where two findings are labeled 3.1(j) with no l 3.1 (i ) . CCANP previ ousl y identified both 3.1(j) findings as  !

requiring notification. g O

8504260118 PDR B50422 ADOCK 05000498 O O PDR ' 1 Y k

licensability because ... (c) the finding addresses a matter of serious concern to the NRC at this time.

This classificiation alone should have cause:d3 Applicants to report all findings in this classification to the NRC." Motion for new cont enti ons at 12.

s CCANP reurges this position. Given the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period for review available, the extensive number of Most Serious Findings, and the definition of those findings provided by Quaorex, HL t<P shot] d have reported all findings classified as Most Serious Findings to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

CCANP would further contend that if any generic finding required notificatior., then any discipline finding supportina that generic finding should have also been notified. Simply as a practical matter, the reporting of a generic finding, in order to be complete, would have stated the basis for that finding, t.e.

named the Quadrex Report and provided the particular discipline findings on which the generic finding was based. Furtherncre, since the underlying findings are the basis for the generic finding in most instances, these f indi ngs have the same potent i al effect on safety in their more limited sphere that the generic findings have for the plant in general. Therefore, CC4NP identifies all specific findings, upon which Quadrex based the generic findings which CCANP now contends should have been notified, as findings which should have been notified.

As a final general category where notification to NRC would be required, CCANP contends that all findings of the Guadrex Report which are identified by the NRC Staff as "saf ety significant," I&E Report 82-12, NUREG-0948, fal1 into the notification category.

2

Below -CCANP identifies' specific findings- for which notification' should'have been provided to the NRC. These findings

'may' orf may.not already_ fall within the general- categories set w

forth above. .

1. Broad- conclusions of-the-Quadrex Report which concern Ldesign inadequacies with potential quality assurance implications i nc l ~ude:

14.1.2 (" Based ' solely on the findings of' this revi ew , n.

determination- of current adequacy Cof the Civil / Structural design 3 cannot be made.");

4.5.5 ("The technical adequacyfof the Mechanical discipline is not presently adequate.");

24.6.2 ("The nuclear analyses performed by BbR to date are either not complete or are not adequate. The D&R Nuclear Analysis Group has not demonstrated either the ability to perform.or to direct ^ others in the performance of nuclear analyses, and has

'shown no concern for'the timeliness of analysis rel ati ve to . Ethe nees of other -interfacing disciplines. Although STP is well advanced ~ in the construction stage, no evidence has. been seen that the Brown.and Root Nuclear Analysis Group has- produced a significant contribution to-the STP design.");

4.8.2 ("The- B&R' Radiological Control-design program is nct

" currently adequate.")

2. Specific areas 'of concern for.the adequacy of design include:'

4.6.2.4 (B&R failing to address simultaneous. normal shutdown of both units) 4.4.2.1.- (plant operating modes, including accident a conditions, have not been adequately addressed) 3.2(n) (consideration of ALARA radiation exposures related t'o access for maintenance and inspection had been inadequate) 4.8.2.2 ( ALARA analysis inadequate)

Overall, CCANP does not believe that the resources of the-1 -

parties and the- Board are well spent arguing over every

. individual. finding in Quadrex. The significance of the report and r

?

U 3

6 the availability of generalized categories, e.g. Most Ser i ou r.

Findings, is sufficient to reach the appropriete conc l usl o. .=

regarding character and competence.

Respectfully submitted, s O

g;gy lItL Lanny Sinkin Representative for In terver nor ,

Citizens Concerned Abuut Nucle.w Power, Inc.

3022 Porter Street, N.W. 4304 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 766-2141 Dated: April 22. 1935 Washington, D.C.

4 L

UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD tin the Matter of' (

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND (- Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL (SouthLTexas Project, ( s

Units 1-and 2) (

CESI1EICAIE DE SESVICE I hereby certify that copies of CCANP RESPONSE TO ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1985 were served by hand delivery (*) or deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 22nd day of April 1985.

• Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection '

Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol-Eta.

Austin, Texas 78711 Dr.-James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge

• Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esquire 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regul ator y Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill

-g Administrative-Judge (* Jack R. Newman. Esquire Hill Associates 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1000

'~

210 Montego Drive Washington, D.C. 20036 Danville, California 94526 Melbert Schwarz, Esquire Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Executive Director, C.E.U. Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1, Box 1694 Brazoria, Texas 77422

• Atomic Safety'and Licena ng Bd.

-U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Com:n.

William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555

!- Harmon, Wei ss 84 Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20009 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Comm.

Pat Coy Washington, D.C. 205b5 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 78233 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ray Goldstein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmm.

1001 Vaughn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20555 807 Brazos Aust~n, Texas 78701

- __ _____________