ML20033B817
| ML20033B817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1981 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | Bechhoeffer C, Eva Hill, John Lamb Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112020290 | |
| Download: ML20033B817 (4) | |
Text
M T2~ C: c: J;r :: r;;c ; ;
f J-
-(
November 21, 1981
.gTED Charles Bechhoeffer, Esquire Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 81 NOV 27 P3:49 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 m=ET; a f E 4 /.5E m CE Dr. James C. Lamb, III J LCH Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 g? I 'Q, f Sh d.[E,}[ I' '-
Ernest E. Hill D
Administrative Judge g
Lt Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Post Office Box 808, L-123 DE01 1981 - -
Livermore, California 94550 9
v.s. ggm N.
Re: Houston Lighting and Power South Texas Project, Units Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-499
Dear Members of the Board:
In its Memorandum and Order (Concerning Changes in Schedule for Hearings) dated October 8,
- 1981, the Board ordered all parties to file a written status report w th the Board on or before November 23, 1981. This letter is in response to that order.
Enclosed with this letter is " Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to File Additional Contentions Based on New Infor-mation and to Establish a Discovery and Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Contentions." This motion seeks the admission of new contentions to the expedited hearing.
CCANP believes these new contentions must be heard prior to the issuance of any partial initial decision on Issues A,
B, C,
D, and E.
These contentions and the proposed contentions on the American Bridge steel question, if admitted will require full' discovery, preparation of testimony, and identification of witnesses.
Admission of the new contentions would require Applicants to
,put on a case in addition to the case already presented in order to meet their burden of. proof.
Currently, this proceeding is at the stage where Intervenors are to put on their case. Requiring CCANP to go forward at this time is not an acceptable ' course of action for three reasons: (1) the developments of the last six weeks caused a
'P'#o'$
major alteration of CCANP's prepared case leading to the can-cellation of all witnesses previously to be called; (2) the decision on what case CCANP wishes to put on in light of the
/
8112O20290 811121 PDR ADOCK 05000498 0
i Members of the ASLB Page Two November 21, 1981 new circumstances requires the discovery requested in the enclosed motion; (3) requiring intervenors to go forward without the Applicants first putting o r.
their case would be a gross violation of due process and fairness.
CCANP, therefore, takes the position that the expedited hearing should be suspended for no less than ninety days from the date any new contentions, including those previously submitted by CEU, are admitted.
The ninety days would be for discovery.
To elaborate further on our
- position, the Board initially suggested an expedited proceeding on Intervenors' Contentions 1 and 2.
The purpose of expediting hearings on these issues was to resolve the. serious QA/0C questions raised by the contentions prior to extensive continued construction. The removal of Brown and Root from the South Texas Nuclear Project to a great extent moots the Board's reason for expedited hearings on these contentions. The main perpetrator of the acts alleged in Contentions 1 and 2 is gone, though the legally responsible party remains. Construction is essentially stopped. CCANP will actively resist any efforts to resume construction except under the conditions set forth in paragraph 39 of
" Citizens for Equitable Utilities' Petition to Suspend Construction
,o f the South Texas Nuclear Project" included. with CEV
" Motion to Suspend Construction" filed with the Board on October 28. There is, therefore, no rush to conclude testimony on Contentions 1 and 2 and do findings of f acts and conclusions of law on those contentions.
This proceeding is also expedited because the Commission so mandated in CLI-80-32. This mandate led to the formulation of issues A through F and their addition to this proceeding. The parties are in agreement that Issue F is premature. Given the removal of Brown and Root, issues A through. F are now the central concern of the expedited proceeding.
The new contentions submitted by CCANP raise issees which are directly relevant and, in deed, crucial to a determination of Issues A through E.
The contentions rel 'a t e to the following I
topics:
- the findings of the Quadrex report,
- Applicants' failure to report more than three of these findings to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e),
- Applicants' failure to reveal the existence of the Quadrex report to the NRC, a failure CCANP contends was will f ul.
The character of witnesses and credibility of testimony presented by Applicants to date.
- the findings of I&E Report 81-28,
- the collapse of the South Texas Nuclear Project partner-ship.
- and the re mo'. a l of Brown and Root from the project.
y l'
Members of the ASLB Page Three November 21, 1981 All of the new contentions are properly before the Board in the-expedited proceeding. While this assertion is more fully argued in the motion itself, a summary of the argument is:
- the new contentions involve noncompliances with NRC regu-
- lations,
- if proven, the new contentions reflect adversely on the character and competence of the Applicants,
- the it e w contentions are essential to a determination of Issues A, B, C, D, and E,
- one new contention (Contention 5) calls into question the credibility of witnesses and testimony previously presented by Applicants in this proceeding,
- the same contention is of such a serious nature that it alone could be the basis for an expedited hearing, and
- the Quadrex report calls into question all structures now in place at the South Texas Nuclear Project.
CCANP takes the position that completing the hearings based on Applicant testimony to date cannot lead to a partial initial decision on any of the issues mandated by the Commission and, therefore, serves no useful purpose.
Additionally, all parties will be spending a great deal of time responding to the enclosed motion.
Should new contentions be promptly admitted, all parties will be spending a great deal of time on the discovery process. The time needed to prepare for and participate in the scheduled hearings in January tan be better spent addressing the new contentions. To require parties to proceed towards a January hearing while also responding to new contentions would be unduly burdensome.
As to future hearings, the new contentions all deal with past acts. As such, these contentions can be heard, along with the wrap up of Contentions 1 and 2, as soon as disco.very, preparation of testimony, and i d e nt i f-i c a t i o n of witnesses on the new contentions is complete.
The Quadrex report is the basis for the _large majority of the new contentions. Since Applicants have already had six months to analyze this report, the remaining time before hearing should be sufficient for preparation of their case.
The additional contentions can all'be heard pursuant to Issues A, C, D, and E (question 1). A't the conclusion of these hearings, a partial initial decision can be reached on these issues and Contentions 1 and 2.
/
Perhaps by the time the past acts hearing process is completed, the Bechtel corrective action or corrective action plans based on the Quadrex findings (assuming that some of the findings do not relate to irreversible errors on the part of Brown and i
T y
y
);
t Members of the ASLB Page Four November 21, 1981 Root) will be complete. We can then proceed with discovery, preparation of testimony, identification of witnesses, and completion of the expedited proceeding. This last phase would hear iss_ues pursuant to Issue B, Issue E (question 2), and any other contentions the Board decided to include.
This plan would allow for a meaningful two stage expedited hearing process with all relevant evidence heard in the ap-propriate stage.
The expedited proceeding would comprehen-sively address the QA/QC history of this project with respect to design, engi neeri ng, construction, and quality control. The r
record would provide a sound, well organized basis for making findihgs of fact and conclusions of law. These findings and conclusions would address both the Intervenors' contentions and the Commission mandated issues.
CCANP perceives this plan as fulfilling the Board's purpose in suggestinc an expedited proceeding and fulfiling the wishes of th~e Commission as expressed in CLI-80-32.
For CCANP,
&~. '
Lann Sinkin 2207 0 Nueces Austin, Texas 78705 (512) 478-3290 c.c. Service list
~
r a
/
s 9
-,--y,.
4 g-m--
.