ML20138N299

Forwards Comments on Program Document Describing Review of Util Vs Brown & Root,Inc Litigation Record,Per . Adequate Assurance Provided That Util Will Identify Any Unreported Deficiencies or Defects

ML20138N299
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	10/29/1985
From:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8511050142
Download: ML20138N299 (2)

Text

+ ,

h a ,

q t, ,

. c OCT 2 9 W Mr. J. H. Goldberg Group Vice President Nuclear Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O.' Box-1700 Houston, Texas 77001

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F THE-HL&P v. B&R~ LITIGATION RECORD: HL&P FILE NO. G25, G4.2 Thank you for your letter dated August 30, 1985, in which a program document was enclosed describing Houston Lighting & Power Company's review of the litigation record in the lawsuit by the owners of the South Texas Project against Brown & Root, Inc., and its parent company, Halliburton, Inc. In your letter you asked for our comments on the document.

'Both Region IV as well as several of our headquarters' offices reviewed the document. Subject to your incorporation of the essence of the comnents contained in the attachment to this letter into the review program, it would appear to the NRC that HL&P will be able to provide adequate assurance that any unreported deficiencies or defects that should have been identified to NL will now be identified.

We will periodically monitor the review while it is under way and request your full cooperation in that endeavor.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ROBERT D. MARTIN Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator

Attachment:

As stated bec:

J. Lieberman, OELD R. P. Denise, D/DRSP E. Reis, OELD R. D. Martin RPB Section Chief, RPS-C RRI - OPS R. Pirfo,. ELD RRI - CONST.

1-RIV File t

WlY 10f /f*

RIV:RCf4 RA NRR IE WLBrown/ cms RDMartin 10/f/85-GHCunningham

,10/d/85 HRDenton 10/d/85 JMTaylor

/

10/2885 i\ h'7 l l 10/g85 t 8511050142 851029 ADOCK 05000498 PDR L A PDR

i Specific Comments

1. Beginning on the fifth line on page 16 of the review program document is the following statement: " Documents exchanged between the parties in response to requests for production are not generally available because they were not filed with the Court." Certainly the documents received by the plaintiffs should be available to HL&P and we would expect such documents to be reviewed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the program plan.

2. The methodology of the litigation review beginning on page 29 refers to the "line-by-line review to identify any assertions of deficiencies" on that part of the litigation record not screened out. A deficiency is defined on page 31 and in Attachment 5. We suggest that the definition be more closely tied to 10 CFR 50.55(e). In addition, we point out the need to keep in mind your continuing notification responsibilities under 10 CFR 21.

3. In Part I, C., 3. of Attachment 2, personnel qualifications are excluded as they also are in other attachments (see Attachments 3 and 4). We believe that substantive deficiencies in the qualifications of personnel conducting safety-related work is germane and to the issue and should be addressed.

4. In Part I, C., 8., Brown & Root's and Halliburton's affiliations with NUS, EBASCO, or other Halliburton subsidiaries is excluded from the review if the interrogatory or set of interrogatories rcquests only information about that subject. We believe that the basis for this exclusion should be amplified.

5. It is noted in Part I, C. of Attachment 3, that depositions relating to HL&P directors and executive officers are being ruled out unless any of the deposition testimony relates to the technical adequacy of STP design or construction. We would expect, nevertheless, that George 0prea's

' deposition testimony would be reviewed in full.

6. Part 3 of Attachment 5 sets forth the criteria that an assertion must satis fy. The criteria appear to be unnecessarily limiting.

7. Attachment 6 limits the FSAR review to Section 3.2 which appears unnecessarily limiting. There are many things in the FSAR and SER that are not in Section 3.2 which HL&P is required to do.

8. In attachment 9, the criterion for interdisciplinary review should be clarified to reflect that " safety-related" is intended to be used in the sense consistent with our above comments in No. 2, above.

L