ML20032C183
| ML20032C183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1981 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C181 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111090375 | |
| Download: ML20032C183 (9) | |
Text
4 11/5/81 O
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
HOUSTOW LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Dockee No. 50-466 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON TEXPIRG ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 31 INTRODUCTION The hRC Staff opposes Mr. Doherty's October 15, 1981 motion to take additional evidence with regard to TexPirg Additional Contention 31.M Hr. Doherty requasts that additional evidence be taken on this issue in light of the publication of the Quadrex Raport, a document prepared by an ir. dependent consultant for the Applicant to detail the engineering status of the South Texas Project. Mr. Doherty requests that, in order that there be a " complete record with regard to the TexPirg 31 issue," the following specific relief be granted:
(1) the Applicant be ordered to present additional testimony regarding (a) organizational charges it y
Evidence on this matter was heard on Oct. 7, 8 and 9,1981.
See Tr. 18053-18513.
bhko!$$$$6 PDR
A made or will make as a result of the report (b) how it will change the STP design to make it licensable, and (c) what changes in the Allens Creek organization will be made as a result of the report.
(2) the Staff should be ordered to present additional testimony regarding (a) its testimony remains unchanged (b) whether the Applicant can alter the STP design to make it licensable, and (c) whether changes in the organizational structure and QA/QC programs for Allens Creek are necessary.
DISCUSSION In his pleading, Mr. Doherty has neglected an elementary principle of motion practice before administrative agencies or the courts; the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that its motion should be granted. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc. (Indion Point Station, Units 1, 2 & 3), CLI-77-2, 5 HRC 13, 14 (1977).
In terms of this motion and fir. Doherty's requested relief, that elementary principle of law requires that Mr. Doherty do raore than say the words "Quadrex Report" and demand additional testimony regarding TexPirg Additional Contentian 31.
li is the moving party; it is, therefore,131 who must demonstrate that jt the consideration of the Quadrex Report would affect the extensive testimony which this Board has already heard with regard to technical qualifications,
or that a consideration of that document would change conclusions reached therein. Cf. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALA8-422, 6 NRC 33, 81-82 (1977), affirmed CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978), affirmed sub num New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. 'NRC 582, F2d 87 (1st. Cir.1978). He has not even attempted, let alone succeeded, in satisfying that burden.
More importantly, however, the instant motion cannot be viewed in a vacuum, but must be cons K red in light of the extensive record which has already been compiled in this proceeding. A view of that record leads to several ineluctable conclusions which are fatal to Mr. Doherty's requested relief, and which must result in the denial of the motion.
First, this Board has made it clear, on the record, that it will not countenance the trial of the South Texas case on the Allens Creek docket.
(See, e.g. Tr. 18233) That warning alone should dispose.of the request by Mr. Doherty that evidence be taken on the licensability of STP in lignt of the Quadrex Report.E Second, Mr. Doherty's burden of demonstrating the relevance and materiality of the Quadrex Report to the Allens Creek proceeding is l
especially heavy given the following facts which are discussed at great length in the testimony already addressed in this record:
i i
l y
Indeed, the Board in the South Texas proceeding is considering at this very time what impact the Quadrex Report will have on the course of that proceeding. That issues is clearly dealt with properly only on the South Texas docket.
l l
t
. I a) Subsequent to the problems encountered at the South Texas site, there was a major reorganization at HL&P to provide better management control of its nuclear program.E Pursuant to that reorganization, HL&P's top management is now able to keep very closely apprised of all facets of the company's nuclear activities en a day-to-day basis.O HL&P management's auditing function with regard to activities of its architect engineer have been improved upon.E
-b) The testimony emphasized the extensive experience which Ebasco brought to the' job at Allens Creek, as opposed to the limited designexperienceofBrown2. Root.O c) Tne design and engineering function at STP was in the mode of
" hand-to mouth activities," as opposed to the Ebasco design work at y
See "NRC Staff Testimony of Frederick R. Allenspach and John W.
Gilray Relative to Technical Qualifications" following Tr.18417, p.3 (hereafter Allenspach); " Direct Testimony of George W.
Oprea, Jr. and Jerome Goldberg on Technical Qualifications and TexPirg Additional Contention 31", following Tr. 18084, p.5; Tr. 18393-18396.
y See, e.g. Tr. 18088, 18091.
y See, e.g. Tr. 18090.
y See, e.g. Tr. 18098,18103-18105, Tr.18394.
i
-. a Allens Creek, which is as complete as any nuclear plant work has ever been prior to the award of a CP.2/
d) The Allens Creek and STP project groups are completely separate.E/
e) The Staff testified that the Applicant has done a fine job of bringing in leading consultants to help then identify problems in their organization. As a. result of this very aggressive campaign by HL&P, their QA organization is above average in comparison to otherutilities.2/
As both Staff counsel and Staff witnesses regarding this issue have previously pointed out, problems experienced at South Texas are relevant for the purposes of this Board's decision only insofar as_ they relate the organizational changes which have taken place in the time period since those problems surfaced.1S/ In light of, inter alia, the major 7/
See, e.g. Tr. 18130 p/
Allenspach, p.4; Tr.18459 9/
Tr. 18489-18490 10/ Tr. 18349, 18351, 18458, 18482 1
I
. 4 reorganization at HL&P, the vast difference in the respective design experience of Brown & Root and Ebasco, and the significant difference in design completion at the construction permit stage between the two nuclear projects involved, it was especially in'.umbent upon Mr. Doherty to demonstrate why a report which apparently is totally unconnected with any activities associated with Allens Creek warrants consider.:fon on this docket. Mr. Doherty has completely failed to supply that crucial nexus.
Indeed, as the Staff understands the situation, it was the very personnal who came to HL&P as part of the corporate reorganization who were responsible in large part for the commissioning of the Quadrex Report.
If anything, this would appear to demonstrate that the restructured HL&P organization is taking steps to discover any possible deficiencies at South Texas and to assume that such deficiences do not occur at Allens Creek.
In short, so far as appears from this record, the matters discussed in the Quadrex Report are irrelevant to the ability of the restructured corporate management of HL&P to oversee the design and construction of 1
the Allens Creek facility in a manner which is technically competent and one which will assure that the public health and safety is safeguarded.
Mr. Doherty's motion gives us no caus. to believe otherwise.
l i
i l
l
7-s.
CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, the Staff urges that the Board deny the instant motion. E Respectfully submitted.
Stephen M. Sohinki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of November,1981.
W We note that Mr. Donerty also requests that other Intervenors be provided an opportunity to engage in cross-excaination during the expanded inquiry which Mr. Doherty seeks. As this Board has made clear on numerous occasions, no party may assert rights on behalf I
of another.
It, therefore, is clear that this portion of the requested relief should not even be considered, let alone granted, by the Board.
l 1
i l
4 i
m
- 7 e ?-e
+
w t
ge---+f++NNT+fT*N'9'+-"WT'-M1 P-ey- ^ -7--
MVw---
et y"'-1-4--m-+-MP*-'D+*-
T='WT s----+P=-
-p&--*
1'er' f
F-r-W
-r--t
-N
='
w p'
b T
r
1 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50- 466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF S_ERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SRC STAFF HOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT 0F TIME and NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR DOHERTf'S MOTION FOR ADDITIO!!AL 1
EVIDENCE ON TEXPIRG ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 31 in the above-captioned proceeding nave been served on +ne following by deposit in the United States mail, l.
first class or, as.ndicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Conaission's internal rail system. this 5th day of November,1981.
Snelder. J. Wolfe, Esq. Chairman
- i Administrative Judge Susan Plettman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Of."ce U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 123',d, Capitol Station l
Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Poute 3, Box 350A City cf Wallis, TX 77485 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon. John R. Mikeska l
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Austin County Judge Administra*ive Judge P.O. Box 310 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bellville, TX 77418 Board Panel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Doherty j
4327 Alconbury Street The Honorable Ron Waters Houston, TX 77021 State Representative, District 79 3620 Washington Avenue, No. 362 Mr. William J. Schilessler Houston, TX 77007 5810 Darnell Houston, TX 77074 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
i Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza i
Houston, TX 77002 i
i
4 Jack Newman, Esq.
D. Marrack Lowenstein, Reis, Hewman &
420 Mulberry Lane Axelrad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Cc7necticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. McCorkle c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
6140 Darnell 13935 Ivymount Houstor, TX 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 fir. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemmer P.O. Box 1335 11423 Oak Spring Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Leotis Johnston Carro Hinderstein 1407 Scenic Ridge Houston Bar Center Houston, TX 77043 723 Main Suite 500 Houston, TX 77002 Margaret Bishop U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Morgan Bishop Region IV. I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Saite 1000 Houston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 592 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenberg, TX 77471 Robin Griffith Carolina Conn 1034 Sally Ann 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Mr. William Perrenod Atomic Safety and Licensing 4070 fierrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 AbkB d Stephfn M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff
..