|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
m-
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EO#
Ex W
.\
L- BEFORE THE~ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING d tRggy 7 jggjy G}.i f}
N
- Offke tE6 ksby q Docheng & Sm%e ;
hls
~
Cmrich L
4
)
In'the Matter of. ) N 6
) Docket No. 50-4 y,y,pg HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO. ) 50 <c~
(South Texas Project,' Units 1 )
and 2) ) p '
fr "
) ,@ OCT
,, 8 mg -
CEU. RESPONSE TO APPLICANT-AND STAFF 'W ' -
OPPOSITIONS TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTION m g'l'N{IjTl} {\ S )/.
/
CEU received the NRC Staff and Applicant filings in opposition to its Motion to File Additional Contentions on Wednesday, September 30,'and Friday, October 2,-respectively. They argue that CEU's con-tentiani do- not meet the tests of 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1)-(v) and that the contentions _are impermissibly vague. The Applicant also argues that I the new contentions are not within the scope of the expedited phase .
of the Operating License hearing.
i To the contrary, CEU filed additional contentions as soon as it was reasonably on notice that any breakdown in the vendor surveil-lance program with respect to structural steel was so serious as to i
constitute a major failure of quality control that should be con-l l sidered by the Board in this expedited phase of the OL hearing.
CEU's additional contentions meet all of the tests of 10 CFR 2.714, and they are both clearly stated and supported by a sufficient basis.
I. CEU's Additional Contentions Meet the Test of 10 CFR
- 2. 714 (a) (1) .
10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) establishes the test for acceptance of late filed petitions to intervene, and it has been held applicable to late filed contentions. The Board is required to balance the follow-N s
8110090285 811006' PDR ADOCK 05000498 f 0 PDR -
ing factors:
(1). Good cause,;if any, for failure to file.
on' time..
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be pro-tected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be.
. expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv)'-The extent to which-the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Since these stcndards were specifically. written to apply to late petitions to intervene, arguments related to contentions .
filed after hearings have begun must be shochorned into the standards sbmewhat awkwardly. The most obvious problem is defining
'what a " late contention" is in order to determine whether the standards apply at all. Where a contention is based on new informa-
. tion, as is the case here, it is arguable that these standards do not apply since the contantion cannot be considered to be late if it is filed reasonably soon after a party could reasonably be on notice of the information supporting the contentions. In any case, CEU will address the standards in order.
A. CEU's Filing Is Timely The Applicant and Staff attack CEU's additional contentions primarily on the ground that they snould have been filed earlier based on a,S50.55(e) report dated February 6, 1981. (Exhibit 1).
Iloueve r , that argument depends upon the proposition that the re-port in question or other reasonably available information put
C'76. .
, ... 3
~ .- .. ;
CEU on notice of-the extensive quality control failures that later came'to-light:and that are the' central focus of our con-
-tentions. That proposition is at odds with reality. ,
The ' S5 0.55 (e) report of February 6, 1981, gives virtually no hint =of.the extent of the problem. From that document, there is no reason to believ"c'that the problem reported was anything more than an isolated incident involving a small number of items.
There is no indication that all of the steel or even any signifi-cant proportion of the steel supplied by American Bridge was in-l l 'volved. The highest number mentioned is forty (40) NCRs which is a pittance in the vastness of the project. In fact, the most
. reasonable conclusion to draw from the report is that a minor l problem developed in the vendor surveillance program and was quickly remedied. That would hardly be - the basis for a conten-tion by C56. There is certainly nothing in either of the S50.55(e) reports cited by the Applicant and the Staff to indicate that the vendor surveillance failure related to four years of structural steel or some 8,000 beams.
CEU had no basis for contending that the Applicant and Brown i and Root had suffered a major vendor surveillance failure until the recent press reports. Not only does that fact constitute good cause under 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) (i) , it establishes that the contentions are not filed late at all and are not even subject to the standards for late filed contentions.
From CE,U's perspective, it appears that the Applicant may pursue a practice of minimizing any problems reported pursuant to 550.55(c) so that the public will not appreciate the full extent of the failures. If that provides adequate information l
t
. - . - - --- - - , .,,,, _ .,,-...-c ., -- . , , . , . , ,
N
-~
~
tofthe Staff, it may well satisfy 550.55(e). However, such sketchy and incomplete'information cannot later be used to argue that-CEU had adequate notice of a fundamental-quality control failure not even hinted at in-the-public document. Only if the Applicant provides complete information in its reports can it later argue that CEU hid adequate notice to file any relevant contentions.
B. There Is No Other Means Of Protecting CEU's Interests.
The Applicant and Staff argue that the 550.55(e) reporting requirements and subsequent Staff review will adequately protect CEU from any safety hazards that might be involved in the use of the American Bridge steel. If that were true, presumably all of the welding and concrete failures that were discovered after several years of construction, and then only in the course of a Staff investigation prompted by constant intervenor prodding,.
would have been caught and_ corrected long ago. More importantly, however, this response misses the point of CEU's contentions.
The most significant lesson of the American Bridge steel incident is that_the Applicant and B & R apparently allowed an inadequate QC/ vendor surveillance program to exist for four years and to accept an enormous amount of safety related structural steel. While the S50.55 (e) process may assure that the steel itself is corrected, it will do nothing to investigate the reasons for the quality control failure, to improve the QC program, or to deter 1ine 'whether the failure was in part the result of a lack of competence and character on the part of the Applicant. Since j these events have a direct bearing on that issue and on the failures of quality control at the project, they must be considered i l
1
- - . - . - , _ _ - - - - - - . ~ - - . - - . _ , , - . - _ , . - , - - - . . . . - _ -
b bylthe Board specially convened to address those issues.
C. A Sound Record Depends Upon Admission
~
Of These Contentions And Participation Of CEU.
As stated above, these issues are central to the Board's consideration of competence and character and to its examination of' quality control'at the project. The record would be grossly incomplete if they are not addressed.
D. CEU Is Not Adequately Represented By Any Other Party.
This particular standard is the most obvious illustration of tho fact that S2.714 (a) (1) was written to apply to late inter-vention petitions, not late filed contantions. It does not make any sense in this context. However, it is clear that neither the Staff nor the Applicant would adequately represent CEU's interests with respeqt tc these matters since they have kriown about them in detail for many months and have never seen fit to bring them ,
! to the attention of the Board, despite the fact that quality con-trol failures of this sort are crucial to the Board's consideration at this phase of the hearing.
E. Consideration Of These Contentions Would Not Unduely Broaden Or Delay The Processing While these contentions would involve substantial discovery and additional testimony in the hearing, there is no reason to believe that they would either broaden or delay the hearing to a significant extent, particularly given the recent upheavals at i
the project that will require substantial delay simply to determine i i*
what is going on there.
}
The contentions do not significantly broaden the hearing because they fall well within the area of quality control, which 9 iyp w gy ----m-,is- *m- -
,,n,- 5 - w - i- ~-ey-- g is 7 ry
s
'has been'the focus of'most of the proceeding.
Even the' issue of; weld safety is~ already part of the proceeding. To a large degree, Lthese cantentions are only a subset o'f matters already under
-consideration.
In. normal circums,tances, new contentions of this sort might well delay a proceeding, although the delay would.not be un-warranted. Here, they may not result in any delay at-all. All
'of these contentions relate to past performance of the Applicant and its prime contractor. Discovery can be reasonably expeditious, and testimony might involve a few days of hearing.- We could ta!:e the matter up-in January, assuming discovery begins immediately.
By contrast, the fact that the Applicant has chosen to fire Brown ,
and Root in several significant areas means that it will be several months befo_re the Applicant, much less the other parties and the Board, will even know precisely what it is doing at the project.
Further hearings will obviously be necessary on the impact of the change in terms of the issues now before the Board, and we cannot reasonably expect completion of discovery and presentation of relevant testimony on those impacts for several months. The new contentions raised by CEU would have virtually no impact on the hearing by comparison with the delay that will be necessary to examine the reasons for and impact of firing Brown and Root.
- 2. CEU's Contentions Comply With The Specificity And Basis Reauirements.
The arguments that CEU has not provided contentions with adequate specificity and basis are simply wrong. The basis is detailed at length in the newspaper articles accompanying CEU's filing, and each contention is tied specifically to a particular i
sp uuuma y ,
, , . . ,~ - - . , - . . . . ,.. _ . - . _ - - - , _ . -
)
n.
requirement of NRC regulationsJor-the Atomic Energy Act.
The available evidence indicates that the Applicant con-
)h sistently-accepted defective steel over a four year period from American Bridge. If that is'so, the Applicant failed to perform adequate inspecticas or control material at the site of the supplier, as specifically required by Section VII of Appendix B.
(Contention 1). It also failed to perform adequate inspections prior to acceptance of matarial at the site as required by Sections X and VII of Appendih B, and to prevent the use of defec-
'tive materials as required by Sections X, VII, and I of Appendix B.
1 (Contentions 1 and 2). For the same reasons, the Applicant failed to carry out adequate oversight of B & R's QA program with respect.
to vendor surveillance, as required by Sections II and VII of Appendix B. Those are the points that are to be litigated under the contentions.
It may be that it is somewhat difficu't to deternine specific narrow aspects of quality control requirements that have been violated. However, that is the fault of Appendix B itself, which is written in very broad language. Intervenors can hardly be required to be more specific in their contentions than the NRC is in the regulations establishing its own requirements.
The only possible quarrel with CEU's contentions 1-4 is that I they do not relate solely to failures in vendor surveillance I
of structural steel, which is the specific basis for the conten-tions. This,is the case because CEU views the American Bridge l l
failures as indicative of likely broader failures. However, it would be acceptable to CEU to limit those contentions to the basis
q V- ~
provided since Contention 8 specifically raises the broader question. Contention 8 stands as well, however, because the failure of vendor surveillance in the. crucial area of safety related structural steel gives rise to the reasonable presumption that similar failures have occurred in other areas. Given the mandate for conservatism in considering the issuance of nuclear plant licenses, it is incumbent upon the Applicant and the Staff to demonstrate that the failures do not extend beyond the structural steel.
Contentions 6 and 7 are supported by the same facts that suppcrt the admission of the other contentions. Contention 7, in particular, is supported by the fact of the quality control s-failure itself. When such a failure occurs, there must be a presumption of safety hazard until invectigation proves the contrary. '"If, as tha Applicant asserts, there is no safety hazard, it can presumably prevail in a Motion for Summary Disposition on the point or in testimony, but it must be required to address the issue.
Finally, CEU withdraws Contention 5. It appears that the S50.55(e) reporting requirements have been not to the satisfac-tion of the Staff. Even so, we believe there are serious questions about the adequacy of the repart and that the Staf f should require substantially greater detail so that the public can have a full understanding of the hazards that it faces. In addition, since the vendor syrveillance failure extended over a four year period, we question whether the tight time constraints of S50. 55 (e) were complied with. However, we do not have a specific basis for believing they were not at this time.
m-2 . '+
.Should subsequent information indicate that-the' report was not made when required, we will submit an additional contention to
-that effect.
'III.
These Contentions Must Be Heard In This Phase of The Hearing.
We have explained,elsewhere why these contentions must be heard-in this phase of the. hearing. To r~espond to the Applicant's argument, we simply reiterate that these contentions raise serious questions of competence and character and quality control failures that the Board has been directed to address in this phase of the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
- :...L,1
/' -
William SI,; Jordan, III -
Harmon & Weiss 1725 1 Street, N.W. Suite 506 (202) 833-9070 Counsel For CEU Dated October 6, 1981
)
i s
i l
4 4
- - , - , - - , - - - - , - ,,,-,w, --
- .n.
..-- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- BEFORC THE ATOM'IC SAFI;T_Y AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of. )
) Docket No. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO. ) 50-499 A (South Texas Project, Units 1 -)
and.2) .)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify-that copies of CEU RESPONSE TO APPLICANT AND STAFF OPPOSITIONS TO ADDITIONAL ,
CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, arranged for hand delivery, this 6th day of October, 1981.
-Charles Bechoefer, Esq. , Chairman Melbert Schwartz, Jr. , Esc Atomic Safety and-Licensing Isaker and llotta Board Panel One Shell Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission llouston, n 77002 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Edw!n J. He i.s Dr. James C. Lamb, III Office of Executive Legal!
313 Woodhaven Road Director Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Ernest E. liill Wanhington, D.C. 20555 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory ,
University of California
P.O. Box 808, L-123 Lowenstein, Newman, Rein, Livermore, California 94550 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Ave., N .1 Brian 11erwick, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20036 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div. Docket.i ng and 'S cvi ce P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Section Aus, tin, Texas 78711 Office of the Sceretary U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
L, 3..iv' -
- Lanny Sinkin 2207-D Nueces Austin, TX 78705 Atomic Safety and ,
Mrs. Peggy Buckhorn Licensing Board- Executive Director.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Citizens.for Equitable
. Commission- Utilities, Inc.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, TX 77422 Betty Wheller, Esq.
-Tim Hoffman, Esq.
Hoffman, Steeg & Wheeler 1008 S. Madison Amarillo,.TX 79101
, ':n '- 1.1 + ' ,1 William'S. Jordan, III
- Iland Delivery arranged for Oct. 7, 1981 v
4 e
i
.