ML20079F216

Suppl to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Level of Intimidation & Harassment Experienced by Inspectors. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20079F216
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	01/17/1984
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., SINKIN, L.A.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8401180188
Download: ML20079F216 (11)

Text

_ _ __ __

' UfD UNITED STATCS UF AMERICA

• c r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W . ,pg,.g 1:i; FORE lHE ATOMIC EAFETY AND LICEN5ING BCARD In the Matter of (

)

HOUSTON LIGHIING AND ( Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POLER COMPAN Y , ET_ Al=._ ) 50-499 OL

(

(South Tc.:as Project , )

Units 1 and 2) (

SUPPLEMENT TO CITIZENS CONCERNED ADOUT t.UCLEAR POWER ICCeUEl ESQEgsED E{UDING,5 OE E6CI GUQ CQUCLUgigN@ OE L6'd Issue E in this proceeding is:

Is there reasonable assurance that the structures now in place at the STNP (ref erred to in Sections V.A. (2) and (3) of the Order to Show Cause) are in conformity with the construction permits and the provisions of the Commission regulations? If not, has HLLP taken steps to assure that such structures are repaired or replaced as necessary to meet such requirements.

In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, CCANP argued that the level of intimidation and harassment e::p eri enced by the inspectors at STNP, the consequential high turnover rate cmong inspectoru, the questionable record of inspections, and the inability of the NRC to locate more than 10 of the 69 inspectors who once uori,ed on the project created an inference of undetected and undetec. table flaWE which made the condi ti on of the plant indetermi:iate. .S ee CCANP F0F 13.1-13.9 at 100-103: See algo FCF 2.50 at 40, 6.8-6.28 at 82-94. 8.6.2-8.6.0 at 115-117, 8.7.6 at i 122-124.

l A recent memorandum and order issued by-an Atomic Safety and Licensing Daard in another proceeding offers support for CCANP's.

. u1 4, i nn o <h 1- to. E90 l' habit 1 It<Nu we at E-o. In

. art.cular , .LL 4i - d4rectr. the 1/oard's attention to the. ASLB 8401180188 840117 mm '

PDR ADOCK 05000490 7 . u

-g _ --

PDR

po21 tion that:

To the e:: t en t that intimidation of inspectors may be isolated e .'en t s , the inJpectino cf clant quality may be suff3c1Ent to E.ssure uc 0+ clint s c f e t '. . If, however, the i n t i c. 2 d .., t i o n ma' be s.iown to 'e c sufficianti'. sericus, ther.

1t c.i . r c f I c :t c r. t ' ,c cualIty ;f pl nt mr.nagement.

Ia aeri.cre. scricus intimicetion c c.u l d result in hidden plart conditions that 2, r e not readily inspected on wal ' down s. Either of theso possible ccnclusions concerning intimids, tion &lic>gations would ha.e ccricus adverse implications for licensing. E:: h i b i t 1 at 5.

The Memorandum and Order of the Ccmanche Peak ASLB is equally relevant to the issue of character. For an applicant to permit a level of intimidation and harassment of inspectors which calls into the question the overall quality of the plant does

" reflect on the quality of plant manayement" and i s. certainly a basis for concluding applicants lack the character to receive an operat..ig license.

To assist the Board in the formulation of its opinion in Phase I of this proceeding, CCANP submits this supplement to its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Respectfully submitted, s/? /] ; I[

(7 4e . p to yhAfoi Lann9 Alan Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suito 220 Austin, l e:: a c 70701 ,

(512) 478-7197 Lounsel for Intervenor Citizens Concerned Abcut Nuclear Pcocr, Inc.

l i 1 l

l I

t i

l l

^

i 1.h : l li t i 1 00CKE7ED UfITED STITES OF AMERICA US E i;UCLEAR REGULATORY CCt'MISSICil Eefore Aaministrative Jucges: N JM -4 A10 :10.

pecer E. El0Ch, Ch31'~an -' - - - -

Dr. Kenre:h A. McCoiicm .;; J

~

Sj.. .

Dr. ',','a l *. e r F . Cercar -

d Docket ilos. :3 405 In the atter cf 50 446 TEXAS LTILITIES GE:4ERATIIG COMPA!;Y, et al. -

(Application for Operating License)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

MEMORAtiDUM At:D ORDER EE.U-.i jai; c. M.1 (Additional Scheduling Order)

The principal purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the scheduling concerns expressed by the .oarties in recent filings.1 A subsidiary purpose is to clarify the effect of our Order of October 25, 1983, " Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance."

I. Method of Resolving Issues Issues that have already been decided, such as 'the reason for firing Mr. Robert Hamilton and allegations of problems with liquid 4

1 Applicarts' Identification of Issues and Prcpesal to Establish Hearing Schedule, December 3, 1983 -(Applicant's Proposal); CASE's

[ Citizens Associaticn for Sound Energy's) Response to Applicants' i

Identification of Issues and Proposal to Establish Hea ring

Schedule, December 23, 1983 (CASE's Response); and tiRC Staff Response to Applicants' Identificatien of Issues and Proposal to  :

, Establish Hearino Schedule, Decemoer 23,1983 (Staff Respense). l 1

i A

9g_,g

Seneduling: 2 penetrant testing, are not subject to relitiga:icn, e n .er by Applicants

]

cr by C'5E witncu: a Drier cecisicr c' :his Ecirc. e nnly sucject 4

! lef t tc ce resolvec witn ressect to the Harilton ar.d 2.chison matters is- -

ne extent to which these questions reflect en -s Overall quality l assurance program of Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany, g al. ( Appl i-cants). This question of overal' significance shal' not be resolved i

until after the Office of Investigation cencludes its pending investiga- t I tiens, or a substantial pertion of them.

Generally, open matters should be resolved by Pearing. The excep-i tion is that moticns for sumary disposition are in crder. We note, however, that it is appropriate to answer a motion for summary disposi- ,

i I

tion by indicating why discovery should be allowed prior to acting on the motion. See Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Matters), December 28, l 1983 at 7. ,

II. CAT Findings, Walkdowns, the CYGNA Report We will not order separate fincines on the CAT matters. The CA:

Team's work dealt with an inspection of one phase cf construction.

Proper interpretation of those matters requires consiceration of subse- i quent inspection walkdowns, including the Fuel Building and the next two Staff walkdcwns, which are essential to our gaining an uncerstanding of Q

l 2

See V., belew, 'for a procecure by. which some issues may be reopened.

1 i Scheduling: 3 j J

i the cuality of constructicn at Coranche Peak. Parties should, of

}

c urse, begin asserbli .; CAT riedings, se t at tr.sy cey dirinish their b u rn r.  ;# filing re;uired Fir.dirp of Fact (in the f:r Of a Pr:::tei Initial Decisien) at tne conclusien c e ali :ne construction quality  ;

' . .. 4 assurance hearings. Similarly, parties shcu.di begin preparing F1ncings on all completed hearing matters. i

+ 1 i

The CYGriA Report will be a subject of hearings because of its relevance to matters discussed in our recent Walsh/Doyle decision. )

i i

i III. Specification of Issues l Applicants and Staff have suggested that we assist the parties by specifying issues. This we decline to do. When the parties file their final findings of fact, they may specify any findings reached by this Board as binding. It is the burden of the parties to provide reasoned i

explanaticns for matters found in the hearing record.

IV. Harassment of Mrs. Darlene Stiner

/me!icants and Staff request our assistance in ascertaining the

• status of the allegation that Mrs. Stiner was harassed. To address this f

i question we reviewed LBP 83-43, 18 tiP.C- 122 (1983) at 127-145. This decision left open the question of whether Mr. Stirer was fired for i

! engaging in a protectad activity and whether Mrs. Stiner was harassed.-  ;

! We note that none- of the parties suggest that we subsequently mcdified

these conclusions. Although Applicants subsequently have filed an i i 4

Seneauling: a affidavit about the Darlene Stiner matter," this occurred in a limited l centext anc witreut the discipline of cross-examinaticn.

We consicer these to be c::en, litigable matters, that have not been.

adequately discussec in any prior cecision. CASE may request subpoenas that wculd be helpful to it in trying this matter arc other matters concerning the intimication of employees. Subpoenas should be requested pursuant to the applicable regulations at least 10 days prior to a i

hearing, unless accompanied by good cause for later filing. j i

V. Welding on Chicage Bridge and Iron Pipe Whip Restraints CASE has presented the Boarc with a series of tardy requests to  ;

reconsider our decision closing the record on CB & I Restraints and 5 I

other matters.6 Althcugh we are reluctant to reopen closed issues in i h

what already appears to be an open-ended proceeding, we note that e

Applicants are being given liberal opportunities to makeup for substan- f tial deficiencies in proof and that some of CASE's allegations appear to raise important safety matters. Although these notions are untimely, in )

e d

3 Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motion for Protective Order, August  !

30, 1982.

• i See CASE's Reply at 13.

5 5;

CASE's Response at 18 and 19.  :

0 ~

E.G., id at 16 (traceability of materials, Stan Miles' testimony),

ic. atl7 (derating polar crane, Mr. Miles' testimony), id. at 17 Tcualifications of supervisory personnel, an issue that Fay still be open without motion), id_. at 20 (NPSI pipe whip restraints). ~

l

I 3cheduling: 5 view of their apparent imcortance and of the liberal privilege to submit rew evicence erjcyed by AD:lican:5, .;e will c:r.si:er < ret"er or nc: tc i

recoen inese issues, which fail ..ithin the arbit Of the ccntention we-are continuing tc consider. A:plicant and Staf' are invited to file comments on the substantive facts involved, together with afficavits they may consider necessary, within 25 dae ..

k VI. Procedure Concerning Quality Assurance In oJr memorandum of October 25, 1983, we established an " alternate reute" for considering the consequences for Comanche Peak if certain allegations of intimidation of quality assurance inspectors were found to be true. The alternate route was to consider the present state of .

the plant on the assumption that the quality assurance allegations were correct.

We believe our itse of the word " alternate" may have misled both the Applicants and the Staff into believing that this would be the only route we would progress along. This we never intended, as can be gleaned cy reading the preceding paragraph in the October-25 memorandum. I j

In that paragraph we laid forth a method of assisting the Board in- s 1

1 determining the seriousness cf the pending charges of intimidation; and that avenue of consideration has been open. E e

After censidering the filings of the parties (and the in, fcamera, ex j i

parte, representations made to us by. the Office of Investigations -

pursuant to agreement by the parties) on the seriousness of the pending '

charces, <. e have ccncludedh t at sc.te of the : .arges will require

Scheduling: 5 hearings. To the extent that intimication of inspect' ors may be isolateo events, ne inspecticn of plant quality .Tay be su"'c'ent to assure us of piant safety, if, hcwever, the intimidaticn ray be shcwn to be-sufficiently :ericus, then it may reflect on the quality of piant l management. Fu rthe rmore , serious intimidation ecuic result in nidden plant conditions that are not readily inspected en walkdcwns. Either of these possible conclusions concerning intimidation allegations would have serious adverse implications for licensing.

Nevertheless, the two track procedure we have adopted should help us to focus hearings on the scope of intimidation and on whether or not hidden conditions may reasonably be expected to exist. We urge Appli-cants to enter into stipulations that may assist the Soard in narrowing the scope of that portion of cur proceedings.

VII. A500 Steel and Welding The Board sees a possible relationship between our Walsh/Ocyle decision and the A500 Steel question. In view of the apparent interre-lationship between the use of A500 Steel and other design questions discussed in our Walsh/Doyle decision, we do not consicer it profitable to receive evidence on this subject independent of scme additional procedure such as the independent design review we have suggested.

We also see a relationship betwcen CASE's continuing concerns about welding and cur Walsh/Ocyle decision. In particular, we have- reviewed .

the affidavit of Henry and Darlene Stiner, July 25, 1983 and sections of i

o 1

\

Scheduling: 7 l

the transcript dealing with weave welding, cownhill welding, preheat re:uirer.ents and cao welding. We finc from our -eview nat the applica-ble criteria nave not been clearly scecified sc that the legal centext ir. which to view the testircny also is not clear. The question is far f rom sirrple. It involves the relationship between the ASME Code, the welding qualification tests perfor ed at Ccmanche Peak, the AWS Ccde and plant procedures. Our record does not permit us to consider these questions in the proper legal context. It is cur hope that Applicants and Staff will not go forward on these issues until they can lay these legal issues open in a clear fashion for us.

VIII. Inspection Reports Based on CASE's filing, it becomes obvious that there are relevant inspection reports that are not part of our record and that have appar-ently not ever been served on the Board as Board notifications. The Board expects to consider all relevant inspection reports in its final determination and gives official notice to that effect. CASE's proposed ;

}

exhibit numbers are accepted. Parties are invited to submit additional reports, numbered as exhibits, for the record. The first filed exhibit numbers shall be adopted autcmatically. j OROER  !

)

For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the  ;

entire recc-d in this matter, it is this 3rd day of January 1984 i

l l

l 3

3CneCU.1Cg: 8

.ur e.. :. u: .. .

t .-. . ..

. . .- rO ee.u ' . e. *. =. r c. . . .c =.. i. . - = . "_---

. ' ' . . = .

"-.~.n.  :.s < =. e. - . . . : c. : =.. a. c e . :. . . :. .

e=.., ., .. . ;< . , e. a. .n oe.:i . . iici

. >:=..

iC. .. . _

Crder ar.c cf our December 28, 1983 scheculir.g creer .ay te subr.ittec witnin :sr. cays of issuance of this Orcer.

r r.:.

• ~~

N* 04MIC Or bY biD l' U C'sS O I s't'r J 80P'.h'D I

Peter B. Blocr., Cnairman ADMINISTP.ATIVE JUDGE Sethesda, Maryland l

l 1

i 1

I l

l l

l

... l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3-BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'c t -

CEEI1EIG01E DE SERVICE *' ' '

AD :08 in tne Matter c- (

) h '

HOUC *N _ I t-H'; I ! S "'- ' Do: Pet Nos. S'J-ave OL; E "

PCWEH COMPANi, El AL. ) 50-499 OL

(

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) (

GEBIIEICSIE DE SEBMICE I hereby certifv that copies of SUPPLEMENT TO CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP) PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 14th day of January 1984.

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

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Admi ni strati ve Judge Robert G. Perlis, Esquire 013 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill Admin 1ctrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esquire Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P. C. Bon 808. L-46 Livermore, Californsa 94550 Melbert Schwar=, Esquire Beker and Botte Mrs. Pecqy Buchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Execut)ve Director Houston. Texas 77002 C.E.U.

Ro .it e 1. Pax in84 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.

Brazoria. Texas 77422 J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

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

Harmon and Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street. N.W. Appeal Board Washinoten, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Renulatory: Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Pat Cov 510L ora Oro DocPetinc and Service Section-

., ,, :_;..o. h4 ,- 025J U.S. Nuclear Haoulatorv C o nim .

h.

J

- L --.:----- -.-.-- -.... .---

Lanny Sinkin

_ ,, _ __