ML20054G017

Contention 50 Re Brown & Root Deficiencies in Quadrex Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054G017
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/15/1982
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206180346
Download: ML20054G017 (13)

Text

-

m 5!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ".". ,

h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION June 15, 1982 B

~. .. ;

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD -- 1 ..

)

In the Matter of:

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.- Docket No. 50-466 h (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) A g a

TNTERVENOR DOEERTY'S CONTENTION 59 3 d'

B This Contention is filed to6 ether with "Intervenor Joherty's B Motion to Reonen the Record", and is the reason for that Motion.

The Contention is in two parts. Doherty Contention 59-A is g below, and Doherty 59B begins at page 4 The conclusion and }{

timeliness section of this motion apply to both parts of the y contention. 7 t

CONTENTION 59(a)  ;

Intervenor contends Applicant has not demonr.tratedit is able to comply with URC regulations, soecifically 10 0FR 50.55(e) E and hence should not be granted a construction per=it for the .I crocosed ACNGS. This contention is based on Applicsnt's failure to recort under this regulation several deficiencies founi by the Quadrex Corporation in its report on design work by the Brown

& Root Company at the South Texas Nuclear Project (3TNP), of May,1981. Intervenor asserts that the following deficiences j should have been reported under 10 CFR 50 55(e) (1)(i-iv):  !

J_

10 CFR 50.55(e)(1)(i): 1 Guadrex Rect. Descriction Item a }.

31 (a) - Lack of systems integration 3.1 (b}(3) Inconsistent review of vendor sutaitted treartent of recorts 1 i.1 (c) Lack of thorough and consisten clant operating modes and environmental condi-tions 3.3 2.1 (e) No documentation for defining separation barriers i 3 Lack of method to assure FSAR co: nit:ents go 11.3 2.1 (g) T)>O into the design L.7.2.1 (a) Since no modal analysis was dcne FSA2 was in-correct 8206180 346 S

x - -

_10.,CFR .5019 fel(O(ii)' ,

?  ;

. Quadrer Report-Description 5.

" Item #

{

4.3.2.1 (b) No top-level document that speairies plant- 5 wide separation requirement. .

4.3.2.1 (n) No document provides guidance on circuit aupli-cation of isolation devices '

K 4.5.2.' (b) Loads use' d as basis for plant design unverified or not reviewed [

4.6.2.1 (a) Temoerature value not controlled by designers '"

for equipment design t.;

4.6.2.1 (b) Insufficient environmental analycis i

=

4.8.2.2 (m) Different values of essential cooling pond g initial temperature assumptions were used !5 by Nuclear Analysis and Heavy Civil disciplines 6:.

5i5 Y

100FR50.55 (e) (1) (iii):

h[

Yi 3.1 (d)(1) Lack of awareness of nigh energy piping in the g[

MAB and safety-related classification versus p::

non-safety related t=

3.1 (d)(3) Identified support systems and safety related g.. j vs non-safety related classification gg 4.1.2.1 (b) No evidence of evaluation of reasonableness [C.;

of postulated internal missiles

[~1 mz 4.1.2.1 (c) Turbine building not analyzed for SSE

((

4 3 2.1 (m) No methodolor7 to assure all required manual $3 operations may be performed at re=ote shutdown gg panels =E

=E.

4.4.2.1(c) Pocket hydrogen accumulations in containment "

after LOCA (But not the battery room) ._

4.6.2.1(b) Lack of environmental analysis throughout , [f 55 4.6.2.1(b) Problems with reactor-shield wall pressury [:!:2?

ization analysis

';}.

4.8.2.2(k) No documented basis for locating breathing  :..

connections

.,]{

i

==

u=

uur

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ~ - -

[ _ .. .

-3.

10 CFR SO.55(e)(1)(iv) =.

Quadrex Reoort '

Descrintion .

Item #

3 1(b)(1) Input data to technical groups not reviewed for reasonableness prior to use 3 1(e) No written guidelines for failure mode and 8 effects analysis B 3 1(j)(2) uage 3-12 AFW pumps not qualified for postulated acci-dent environments 4.1.2.1(f) Pipe rupture loading may not be adequate ,

t 4.3.2.1(h) No basis or procedure to identify suonort i systems needed to assure safety systemiper- #

formance -

a.3.2.1(d) Vendors allowed to apply NRC requirements h instead of architect engineer u.a.2.1(d) Separation requirements against common [.

mode failures not identified .-

4.4.2.2(h) No consideration of normal open doors and hatches in HVAC calculations t.

a.5.2.1(c) Secondary effects of pipe rupture events .T have been uninvestigated "

4.6.2.1(a) Temperature values for eg'uiument design hava ,

not been properly controlled. -

4.6.2.1(e) Use of 2ELAP3 for annulus cressurization [.

analysis was inappropriate  ;.:

a.6.2.1(j) Use of double ended pipe break rather than  ?:

c crack break diagrees with FSAR commitment 4 7.2.1(a) No modal analysis of pipe whip was done i t

4 7.2.1(d) Use of high stiffness for pipe supports "

gives unconservative results  ;

4. 8. 2.1(d) Shielding calculations were not safety  !

related .

4.8.2.1(e) No correlation of radiation zones to shiel- -

ding design;  ;

l Intervenor asserts that failure to report these findings demon- "

l strates inability to comply with NRC regulations, and that this inability would endanger the public and this Intervenor were 9 i A9plicant granted the sought license. .

W j=

Contention 59B }.=..

By reporting but three findings from the Quadrex Report g;=

under 10 CFR 50 55(e), by May 12, 1981, and failing to report [;{j}.

tha items listed in Contention 59A (suora.) and failing to [g1 cm uno other means of communication, the ACNGS Applicant delib- g=

Grately prevented the NRC, the South Texas Nuclear Project g Board (Docket STN 50-498, 499), and the Board and Parties ig in the Allens Creek proceedings from learning the potential

- ~' --

55 significance of the Quadrex-South Texas Nuclear Project Report's [

findings. Thi's action or inaction by Applicant prevented the NRC, the two Boards and other parties, particularly parties in [

thr,se oroceedings,from learning the implications of the @

Quadrex-South Texas Nuclear Project Report for judging Appli-cant's technical competence, and whether the Applicant can Q be held to an ". . .[eJ xtraordinary responsibility for safety," pi cs reauired by the Commission. (In the Matter of Atlantic Re- ..

nearch Coro.), CLI 80-7, March 14, 1980; CCH 30,459, at 29,302.

This contention is s'upported by a tremorandum ( Attached) from William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations of the NRC to then Commissioner Bradford, dated December 15, 1981, F

made available to this Intervenor on March 24, 1982 in reply to Intervenor Doggett's First Set of Interrogatories to Staff, Itam #'f. U When the Memorandum attached to this filing is compared to h.=

the " Chronology attached to this Intervenor's March 29, 1982, [

"Intervenor Doherty's Motion for the Board to Call as a Witness, flll tz Donald E. Sells (NRC) for TexPIRG Additional Contention 31 and p

~

Quadrex Related Matters", differences are insignificant in terms of the o,uestion of when the NRC first received a copy of the Quadrex Report-STNP for full review. In fact, this Intervenor 5 is aware that William Dircks, of the NRC, also sent a memorandum -f to the Commission on Janua-y 11, 1982, in which he concurs with (

this Intervenor's assertion the two chronologies are insi 5 nifi- .

cantly different. This Intervenor does not have a copy of this memorandum to attach, since it is not yet in the oublic document p i

room in Washincton D. C Eowever, this Intervenor fully eroe cts the Staff will orovide it on discovery if this Contention is admitted. .

_\

._,..-.g_,

I{l

.gggh - - # 4 _

_. g.

=

qur:29f(.j.

D .- -l[ . ud p:n;z?"..."" _.,.-..-*

ipauz W ,-

Conclusion gg;g.m y:: ?;' - *M Ep.ey "*"""' N Intervenor therefore urges hi L.-"" m

~ ting of Parts A and B be s Contention 59, consis-

==m in h;. =~,.yc:.

=7 I admitted into this proceeding o a re-ouened record.

h. ~-

.3

' ~ ~2 rex-South Texas Nuclear Project RThere uad - is h:i,. 'l.5E5 eport that Applicant either does not have the techni 4====a simply unwilling to

"~"

=

.n.

==="?

cal comnetence to or is e

n.c.B=h,"~.'_.L~~=f .. -

+E m!::2 ulation such as 10 CFR 50 i-iv).

55(e)(1)(comg res-s

<y: the NRC has provided a basi In addition,

.. . .. .-_ s for the

=

1

~ TM, Applicant did not notify it assertion that the n.

m:,,.=.:

====;;;'

J:::

Quadrez-South also Texas Nuclear Projof the signifi Wi should have been reported to thect Report rega

=.:e.

=:: 50 55(e).

24 e NRC under 10 CFR

% It is

' 3

"~" . ::

9)5 =3 Applicant if the Quadrex .STRPclear - antages to the tha

===3 6y

?B Commission scrutiny. findinEs could have One avoided

. .:2

==== 9"""

==

= = = . =>

12 issues would not be of these was that additional

....... ::cMyi proceedings by Intervenors orraised as part of T n these ii=y==.: ~::._. " ;;;:

_ Board, through Board Questiperhaps by the licensing

=== =. . og:U S E- - ons.

Timeliness Recuirement for thi s Contention -

_ ==..M_. 4n.55 A. There is good cause for th Y M$ tional contention for Boarde lateness in filing this addi -

, .a=.:

By granting this Intervenor' consideration.

w tional Zvidence on TexFIRG Ad s Renewed Motion for Addi-

='

cant's Technical Qualification ditional Contention

) 31

, (Appli-

..==Y s , the Board recognized that

.= g.c

(.[a- ]

=.

z.a = =7-3.

.:^:.r:

,== y a g m ======

_ a" :_-.;;;%

~

::... ; .-~ ~ . _ . . - -

~

l

• 2

- se-5

-, , t.

E issues related to the Quadrex/STNP Report were considered b legitimately excluded from timeliness bars because the '

recor: did not become available until very late in this ...

Droceeding. -

The Board's Order of January 28, 1982, re-osening this h

proceeding indicated the Board itself was concerned with E whether HL&P informed the Board in a timely fashion of the 0 reoort, (p. 3,6). The Board Order of April 8,1982, indi- 'h cated the issue of disclosure was at least marginally relevant and denied without prejudice this Intervenor's motion to subpoena an NRC witness on this matter. g From the Board's two Orders cited above, this Inter-venor erpected to be able to explore both issues set forth fI in this motion during the hearin5 convened on April 12, 1932.

This exoectation is demonstrated by interrogatories to Appli-cant of both the 10 CFR 50.55(e) issue and disclosure in h" general. These Interrogatories included: in Set #1, items 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 17; in Set #2, items 33, 34, and 35; in Set #6, item 2; and in Set #7, item 6, 20, and 32. b The discovery process for the April 12 hearing resulted in the Attachment coming into the possession of this Intervenor k for the first time on aporoximately March 27, 1982, as part of 3 the Staff's response to item 7 of DoEgett's Interrogatory Set 1. 2 At the April 12-14, 1982 hearings, the Board restricted -

questions on these issues to narrow areas of fact, Tr. 21,688 g w

! line 7 et seo.; 21,696, line 23, el seo.; and 21, 834 line 19 L et sec. The Board soecifically denied this Intervenor the

~

opportunity to cross examine regardinG th'e attachm'ent.'-(5r. 21,727) 1 Similarly, the Board denied this Intervenor the opportur.ity to cross examine regarding an apoarent NRC investigation on whether Apolicant deliberately' witheld the Quadrex/STNP Report

~

from the NRC. >

Only by actually attempting to cross examine on these issues relevant to Doherty Contention 59 as set forth above, could this Intervenor know whether the Board's Orders of January 28, 1982 and April 8, 1982'would permit such issues f to be raised and fully litigated. Eight, days after..the hearing j

'this Intervenor.. filed to ' hear issues similar to Contention 58. -

On being denied,he has through this Contention and a Motion to Reopen,after a seven day pause sought to have the Board consider i

o 4

7-this Contention'59r setting forth in ihe -Mbt:ib2f to' Reopen

~

why ~the Contention ~ ls sufficiently importani to reopen.-

For the above reasons, there is good cause for the lateness in filing -his additiona1' Contention for Board consideration.

B. Assuming good cause for lateness is established, the bal-ancing of the five factors in 10 CFR 2 714(a) (1-v) determines whether the issues should be admitted for hearing.

According to previous rulings of the Commission, late filed issues are first examined to sie if there is~ good reason for lateness and then a balancing test is cond'ucted of the five factors in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(i-v) to determine if the issues should be adnitted, Pacific Gas and Electric Comnany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 81-5,13 NRC 361, 364 (1981).

The five factors are:

(1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.

(2) The availability' of other means whereby petitioner's interests will be protected. *

(3) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developin5 a sound rec-o rd.

(4) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. '

(5) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.

1 The issues in Contention 59 were .: raised as rapidly after the April 12, 1982 hearings as possible. .

Rulings on the' scop's of the~iesues 'for -those. hearings were, of course made at that time, which meant filings came after those rulings. This Intervenor has endeavored firmly t.o bring these issues before the Board since that tine, 2.

Only admission of the additional contention can pro-tect this Intervenor's interests.

l The only available forum for determining whether Applicant '

should receive a construction permit for the ACNGS is this pro-ceeding. This Intervenor filed for and received permission to intervene in this proceeding in order to contest the granting i

4

- 8* .

of this construction permit. Only by granting the instant motion can the Board assure this Intervenor an opportunity

, to litigate the contention raised in the context of the ACNGS.

3. Absent the admission of this new contention, the record of this proceeding will be seriously flawed.

f Both the failure to report pursuant to 10 CFR 50 55(e) '

and the possible deliberate failure to disclose raise very l serious questions relevant to whether the Applicant should i

be granted a permit to build the ACNGS. Much of the faith ,

of the NRC in Aoplicant's improved performance rests on the '

credentials and ernertise of Jero=e Goldberg, Tr. 22010, line

12. The central figure in the failure to report pursuant to 10 CPR 50 55(e) and the possible deliberate non-disclosure {

is the same Mr. Goldberg. As Vice President for Nuclear Engineering and Construction, Mr. Goldberg is obviously a {

central figure in the Applicant's effort at ACNGS. The fact that the events forning a basis for the new contention f

5 took place at another nuclear plant is irrelevant since the  %

a same personnel are involved as in this proceeding and the events took place while this proceeding was under way.

{

Aside from the people involved, Contention 59 raises i a question re6arding the technical competence of Applicant which is already in issue in this proceeding, TexPIRG Addi-tional Contention 31.

Getting to the facts on this issue would strengthen the j record.

[

l 4 The issue of this Intervenor's interests being rep- f resented by existing parties is moot. I This Intervenor is already recognized as representing an independant viewpoint. Factor four, is uniquely applicable g

to a petition for leave to intervene. In addition no other 3 party has assumed as much of the burden in the Technical Qualification Issue as this one, f_

f

, S 5

5 k

e

w g

_ 9 "_

w y

?2

5. The issue of technical qualifications, part of Conten- 3l ti6n 59 is among issues currently before the Board as within h TexPIRG Additional Contention 31. The issue in Contention 59B' _

g is of much importance to the ultimate decision which rust be =

reached by this Board on the qualifications of the Applicant. h Uhile admission of this contention will lengthen the construc- i[

tion permit proceeding, the primary resposibility for delay rests with the Applicant.

As argued above, a failure to reco5nize and report a de-ficiency reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) demonstrates a serious lack of technical competence. p l Contention 59B raises a very serious question ab:ut Appli - 5 u.

cant's willingness to conform with both the spirit and the letter {

t of the ERC's self-policing regulatory prccess. The issue goes [

even further in suggesting Applicant mi5ht deliberately obstruct the NRC in the conduct of a full regulatory review. Issues of i such importance are clearly relevant to this Board's determin-ation on whether Apolicant has the qualifications to receive ,

i a construction permit for the ACNGS. z}

Obviously to admit these. issues would lengthen the con- i truction permit proceedings, but this Intervenor maintains that  ;

these issues exist because the Applicant delayed in communica- [

tin 5 the significance of the findings in the Quadrer/5TNP report l-to the NRC. The Applicant's delay should not form a basis for f denying an Intervenor's motion for a . mew Contention. f Conclusion on timeliness  ;

While the fourth relevant factor weighs against admission,  !

i there are mitigating circumstances. The other three factors succort admission of this Contention. A balancin' g of the four relevant factors in 10 CFR 2.714(aXi-v) favors the admission of :Gontention 59 and a reopening of thia proceeding to litigate it.

Respectfully, ohn F. Doherty Intervenor cro se l

I

. 2. __. .. . . .

ESE

- -: , gg

,  ?!5

. ,' E[5i; JH=-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3.h p.0 I certify that copies of, "INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION gi ici:

TO REOPEN THE RECORD" and "INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S CONTENTION 59" ce CEE were served on the. Parties below via irst class U. S. Postal ~$}M E

Service from Houston, Texas, this

- of June, 1982., {m

=

.aut Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Administrative Judge Gustavo A. Linenberger Administrative Judge  ??

Dr. E. Leonard.Cheatum Administrative Judge Richard A. Black, Esq. Staff Counsel . .;,

Jack R. Newman, Esq. Applicant Counsel  !=.=

J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. Applicant Counsel EE Atomic Safety Licensing & Appeal Board @!

The Several Intervening Parties rir.

Docketing & Service Branch (NRC) R?

5

=

e.t El Respectfully, M

=

John F. Doherty/ 57 Intervenor ....

r::'.

,.J I

HE.

I is

=

rr 5f .

e 9

r j 3

DEC 151981 MEMORAND0M FOR: Commissioner Peter A. Bradford - 5

. E v: :

FROM: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

- [e g

SUBJECT:

E

. CHRONOLOGY RELATED. TO THE QUADREX REPORT ON SOUTH TEXAS =

2::

The enclosure provides the chrono 1.ogy relating to the Quadrex report. .The FE chronology is based on interviews with cognizant individuals and corres- if pondence. As shown in the chronoingy, the NRR Project Manager was aware '"

of the study almost from the beginning, and was aware of its completion in i:g.

early May. The major findings of the report were not made E until August 19, 1981, when a regional investigator and in. known to during spector, the NRC 5 investigation 'of an unrelated matter, requested access to various audits M performed by Houston Light & Power (HL&P) and their. contractors. The Quadrax i report was provided as part of the material requested. The regional office h; notified Mr. DeYoung and Mr. Case of their review of the report on August 27, p 1981. On September 28, 1981, HL&P notified the ASLB of the report, and the 15 Board received the report on October 6,1981.  :.

It appears that HL&P did indeed keep the NRC informed concerning the study, N but the potential significance of the findings was not made known in a timely fashion. Once the potential significance was known, the staff met its obli-gations to keep the Board and Commission informed. It should be noted that the real significance of the Quadrex review and findings are still not known. -

The licensee ar.d their new archite.ct/ engineer, the Bechtel Corporation, are reviewing the matters raised in the report with the Quadrex personnel who ,

performed the review,' and will then apply their understanding of these findings

.to their overall review of the South Texas Project.

r' L The regional office intends to ensure that the findings in the Quadrex report have been apprcpriately considered by Bechtel and HL&P prior to resumption of construction activities at the plant site.

Girt.s$ Wi!!Iam 1.Dir;h 5 William J. Dircks I

, . Executive Director for Operations p 5

cc w/ enclosure: Distribution Chairman Palladino KCornell, EDO JTCollins, RIV ;E Commissioner Gilinsky VStello, DED/ROGR EDO 11224 h Commissioner Ahearne TRehm, EDO BMatosko, It  !

Commissioner Roberts HRDenton, NRR H11-2567-H07 ,

SECY RCDeyoung, IE J4 Files OGC JHSniezek, IE .' rDon 5 ells, NRR OPE THarpster, IE WJDircks l-WPU:JD RIV/2//A EDO -

12/7/81 JTCollins WJDircks .

5520 12/7/81 12/ /81 0 .

d

)

d i

. * = sur - =*e w==mm - w-ee e --,.-.%-e e

Chron21ogical List ~of Events .

, , i

,, 3 Jan/Feb 1981 Goldberg (VP, HL&P.) told Sells (NRR Project Manager) HL&P .

hired Quadrex to conduct " Independent Rev',ew of Design Status" April 21, Goldberg told Sells, as a result of Quadrex, there will be some  ;

1981 .

50.55(e) reports and Quadrex report will be completed in May 81 s and Sells could see it. .

[

late April t Sells told Mr. Hall (IE Section Chief) that HL&P had " Independent i 1981 Design Status Review",that report would be completed.in May and

• 1 to expect some 50.55(e) reports.

e Week of Goldberg told Sells Quadrex was completed and HL&P was reviewing 3 May 12, it and NRC Region IV was notified of three possible 50.55(e)-

1981 .

items.

May 13-14, Sells told Sh'annon Phillips (Resident Inspector, S'. Texas) that 1981 HL&P was going to make Quadrex available to him (Sells).

May 1981 On May 8,1981, Mike Powell (Project Engineer, HL&P) notified [.

Region IV (Mr. Crossman) of three possible 50.55(e) items.  ;

(NomentionofQuadrex.)  ;

c August 19, Phillips and Herr (Investigator, Region IV) saw "Quadrex" report -

1981 during investigation 81-28. ,.

A'ugust 27 Hale'(Staff Region IV) became aware of Quadrex audit. I 1981 .

August 27, Collins (Deputy Regional Director, liegion IV) contacted 0: E 1981 -

Mr. Oprea (Sr. VP, HL&P) and requested unrestricted review of 5

, Quadrex. Oprea concurred and Collins told Oprea that he is  ;

sending a RIV inspector to review report. Also, Mr. Oprea  ?.

offered to come to RIV to conduct an oveiview of the finding of =

Quadrex on September 8, 1981. Collins also encouraged Oprea ~

to advise ASLB Board of the existence of the Quadrex report.

Also, Collins notified Mr. DeYoung, NRC HQ, and Mr. Case, NRC NRR.. . Collins told them he was not taking any additional action until September 8, 1981.

August 31 - Hale reviewed Quadrex at RRI office at STP.

i September 3, '

1931 September 4, Hale briefed Region IV personnel (Seyfrit, Coll. ins & staff) 1981 .

k

a. Quadrex was general in nature in that many potential items h g

existed. .

b. Quadrex did not appear to identify any significant items not already known to NRC. g

=

, c. Apparent that construction was leading engineering.

,]

, . y E

t

, .. . . 1 I

t September 8, O 1981 -

HL&P' presented overview of Quadrex to NRC RIV.

September 14, 1981 (approx) E. Reis (ELD) advised applicants' attorneys that they should .

provide the,Quadrex. report to.the Hearing Board. .

September 28 1981 Letter sent to ASLB Board telling them that Quadrex report existed and would be forthcoming. (Received October 6, 1981.) '

October 15, Region IV received Quadrex report from D.

1981

~

Manager.

E'. Sells, Pro,iect .

O k

J s

9 e

9 09 0

e 0

e e

O

% 9 e

e O

e