ML19340D384
| ML19340D384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8012300477 | |
| Download: ML19340D384 (12) | |
Text
'.
d 4
ve'
~_
h'.I e
I t
?'-
A <,,j e
- ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(
g#+To NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
L.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman 3
Dr. James C. Lamb
%3e Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke
~d In the Matter of
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
STN 50-499 OL (South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SECOND PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (December 2, 1980)
On November 19, 1980, the Licensing Board held a prehearing conference in this operating license proceeding.
The conference was announced by our Order of October 30, 1980.1/
At the conference, the following matters were discussed:
A.
In our Memorandum and Order of September 24, 1980, we invited the parties to attempt to agree on issues to be heard in this proceeding as a result of the Commission's Memorandum and Order of September 22, 1980, CLI-80-32, 12 NRC The Applicants forwarded their initial proposals to us by II That Order was published in the Federal Register of November 17, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 75820).
2 Q50 s
/!/
G 8012300 M
. letters dated October 6 and 22, 1980.
The NRC Staff submitted its first proposal by letter dated October 15, 1980.
Neither of the intervenors (CCANP and CEU) responded to our invitation to submit proposals for such issues.
Because of differences between the Applicants' and Staff's initial proposals, and in response to their suggestions, we convened the November 19, 1980 orehearing conference to determine, inter alia, the issues to be heard concerning QA/QC matters, the subject of the Commission's Memorandum and Order Prior to the conference, by letter dated November 14, 1980, the Staff transmitted to the Board and parties a revised statement of issues upon which it and the Applicants had agreed.
At the prehearing conference, we were informed that both intervenors had essentially agreed with the Staff's October 15 statement of issues (Tr. 209, 236, 250).
For that reason, they had not submitted proposals of their own (Tr. 236).
But they strongly disagreed with the revised statement (Tr. 209-12, 234-36).
Additionally, they complained that they had not been brought into the recent negotiations between the Applicants end Staff which led to that revised statement (Tr. 206-10, 263-64).
(They stressed that they had been consulted concerning the l
Staff's earlier statement, with which they agreed (Tr. 205, 236).)
l Particularly in light of our September 24, 1980 invitation to all parties to attempt to agree upon issues, the Board regards thc l
l 1
3-i Applicants' and Staff's negotiations which excluded the intervenors as discourteous at best and as inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of our earlier directive.
When we tuvite parties to atte=pt to reach agreement on particular matters, we expect that negotiations will normally include all parties who may wish to participate.
Henceforth, we will look with disfavor upon any failure by the Applicants or Staff to include the intervenors in negotiations of this sort.
In any event, the primary difference between the views of the intervenors, on the one hand, and the Applicants and Staff, on the other, was the emphasis they chose to accord to the past practices of the Applicants which had given rise to the Staff's April 20, 1980 Order to show Cause.
In CLI-80-32, the Co= mission had observed that those practices, in themselves, might be found serious enough to warrant denial of operating licenses (slip op., p. 18).
The intervenors sought to raise as an issue that very question--i.e., whether those past practices, standing alone, would warrant denial of such operating licenses.
They read paragraph 1.A of the Staff's letter of October 15, 1980 (with which they agreed) as raising that issue (Tr. 250).
In contrast, although agreeing that past practices should be looked at, the Applicants and Staff claimed that issues which raise the past practices should also encom-pass the sufficiency of corrective actions adopted or proposed by the Applicants.
Indeed, the Applicants expressed the view
. that the past practices could not meaningfully be considered apart from the corrective actions (Tr. 233-34, 239-40, 267-69).
However, CEU, in particular, expressed the view that the corrective actions should not even be examined during the expedited hearing on QA/QC issues but should only be considered in the event of a finding that the past practices in themselves would not warrant the denial of operating licenses (Tr. 257, 303).
As indicated at the prehearing conference, we agree with the intervenors that the Commission Memorandum and Order does contemplate the adjudication of whether past practices in themselves would be sufficient to deny the application for operating licenses.
We therefore accepted an issue raising only that question.
As we also indicated, however, the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations contemplate that operating license determinations must be based on predictive findings whether an applicant will comply with applicable requirements.
l Further, where past deficiencies are demonstrated, an applicant is permitted to attempt to demonstrate whether (and how) those l
deficiencies have been or will be remedied.
- See, e.g.,
10 CFR 55 50.40, 50.54(e) and (f), 50.55(e); 10 CFR S 2.201(a).S/
SI Wenotethat,deni$rovidingusguidancewithrespectto in the possible 1 of operating licenses by virtue of past managerial practices, the various Commissioners in their separate statements in CLI-80-32 cited two decisions which stress the totality of a licensee's operation and the i
importance of matters which may mitigate the significance of adverse findings concerning prior practices.
Cosmopolitan l
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1978);
I At1matic Research Corp., ALAB-594, 11 NRC 841 (1980).
I
. For these reasons, and because the Commission clearly indicated in CLI-80-32 that the expedited QA/QC hearing was part and parcel of the operating license proceeding, we also accepted as a separate issue the extent to which the Applicants may have corrected the effects of past practices (or may have taken steps to assure that past practices do not recur).
We have set forth in the attachment to this Order the issues we have accented for consideration at the expedited QA/QC hearing.
B.
After discussion with the parties, we adooted the following schedule for further discovery on, and hearing of, the QA/QC issues:
1.
January 16, 1981 Last date for the Applicants or NRC Staff to file discovery requests or motions to compel (except (a) depositions of witnesses or (b) discovery based on new information in i
Staff's SER).
2.
February 2, 1981 Last date for intervenors to file discovery requests or motions to compel (except (a) depositions of
6-witnesses or (b) discovery based on new information in SER).
Note:
with respect to discovery requests filed by intervenors subsequent to January 16, 1981, inter-venors must telephone the Applicants and Staff on or before the filing date and make available discovery rcquests for messenger pickup.
3.
February 16, 1980 Issuance of SER on QA/QC (approximate) issues.
4.
February 23, 1981 Filing of responses to or 30 days after discovery (except on SER).
j service of discovery request (whichever is earlier) l 5.
15 days after Last date for filing dis-service of SER covery requests based on new information in SER.
.-,c-c,
.e.,-.-
--,-s..
,w.
e
,ra
,c vs
.e,
. 6.
30 days after Filing of responses to service of request discovery based on new infor-mation in SER.
7.
March 2, 1981 Identification of witnesses and substance of testimony by all parties.
8.
Week of March 16, Prehearing Conference.
1981 9.
April 1, 1981 Last date for depositions of witnesses.
10.
April 15, 1981 Filing of written testimony.
11.
Week of May 4, 1981 Commencement of evidentiary hearing.
In view of the Commission's emphasis upon an expedited hearing, we expect the parties to adhere to the foregoing schedule as closely as possible.
Modifications will not be i
granted absent a strong showing of good cause.
l t
l C.
We discussed with the parties possible locations for holding future prehearing conferences and the evidentiary j
l t
. hearings.
We announced that, in accord with usual NRC prac-tice, the hearings would begin in Bay City, Texas, near the site.
Limited appearance statements will be taken ac that time.
(We add that we will likely also desire at that time a site tour to view deficiencies and remedial action taken.)
Because the hearing facilities in Bay City are apparently not ideal, we discussed holding conferences and other hearing sessions in Houston, San Antonio, or Austin.
The Applicants preferred the first two cities (although not objecting to Austin for prehearing conferences); the intervenors preferred the latter two cities.
We deferred any decision on this matter, but indicated that portions of the hearing might be held at differing locations.
D.
We informed the intervenors of the Commission's new program of procedural assistance for intervenors.
Both CCANP and CEU requested such assistance (Tr. 342).
We determined that both parties would be afforded xerox copies of transcripts reproduced by NRC, and that they would share a single overnight copy of the transcript during the evidentiary hearings.
i l
i
~
i 9
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Itb *, bJ.tk$vb r J Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman E
l Dated at Bethesde Maryland i
this 2nd day of De..: ember 1980.
e=
5 1
o 4
=,
,.w-vr-7,-wy ww-is -, - - - - = -+-e tw -9y-g y-1 gW
>+,*-e=-mee*-t-*
- --rav
-+WN
" vv g*
p*e 'T"'=*+y-a-g
+
' - *"**P---
Attachment QA/QC ISSUES In addition to Contentions 1 and 2 (attachment to Memorandum and Order dated August 3, 1979), the following QA/QC issues are admitted into controversy as a result of the Commission's Memorandum and Order dated September 22, 1980 (CLI-80-32) :
Issue A.
If viewed without regard to the remedial steps taken by HL&P, would the record of HL&P's compliance with NRC requirements, including:
(1) the statements in the FSAR referred to in Section V.A.(10) of the Order to Show Cause; (2) the instances of non-compliance set forth in the Notice of Violation and the Order to Show Cause; (3) the extent to which HL&P abdicated responsi-bility for construction of the South Texas l
Project (STP) to Brown & Root; and (4) the extent to which HL&P failed to keep itself knowledgeable about necessary construction activities at STP, be sufficient to determine that HL&P does not have the necessary managerial competence or character to be granted licenses to operate the STP7
,y-,_
w t
e-+-w e
-a
-i
e-s'N--
---ew-'+
(
9 -1
--*W-'-
P*-99
j
[
- Issue B.
Has HL&P taken sufficient remedial steps to provide assurance that it now has the managerial competence and character to operate STP safely?
Issue C.
In light of (1) HL&P's planned organization for operation of the STP; and (2) the alleged deficien-cies in HL&P's management of construction of the STP (including its past actions or lack of action, revised programs for monitoring the activities of its architect-engineer-constructor and those matters set out in Issues A'and B), is there reasonable assurance that HL&P will have the competence and commitment to safely operate the STP?
Issue D.
In light of HL&P's prior performance in the construc-tion of the STP as reflected, in part, in the Notice of Violation and Order to Show Cause dated April 30, 1980, and HL&P's responses thereto (filings of May 23, 1980 and July 28, 1980), and actions taken pursuant thereto, do the current HL&P and Brown &
Root (B&R) construction QA/QC organizations and practices meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; and is there reasonable assurance that they will be implemented so that construction of STP can be completed in conformance with the construc-tion permits and other applicable requirements?
. I Issue E.
Is there reasonable assurance that the structures now in place at the STP (referred 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 Commission regulations?
If not, has HL&P taken steps to assure that such structures are repaired or replaced as necessary to meet such requirements?
Issue F.
Will HL&P's Quality Assurance Program for Operation of the STP meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B?
l l
i
-