ML20041B587

Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 820210 Motion for Portion of ASLB 811216 Fourth Prehearing Conference Order Re Sequence of Scheduling on Quadrez Rept. No New Circumstances Exist.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041B587
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/22/1982
From:	Newman J JOINT APPLICANTS - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8202240316
Download: ML20041B587 (7)

Text

-

gl27 N3

?

1 C ':C -T

• nc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b CO 2r3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPAdY, -ET AL. ) 50-499 OL

)

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION 95 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING FOR 't ff HEARINGS ON APPLICANTS' HANDLING OF 'e THE QUADREX REPORT NCg a vt y S[g WO {

Statement 8% g 3 ((%:}%

In its motion dated February 10, 1982, CCANP ^

g>'sh w .-cy,4g seeks reconsideration of a portion of this Board's Fo -tli..Ujk Prehearing Conference Order (December 16, 1981), concerning the sequence and scheduling of hearings on certain matters related to the " handling" of the so-called Quadrex Report.

Applicants oppose the CCANP motion on the grounds that CCANP has not asserted any error of fact or law nor cited any rele-vant new circumstance which might serve as the basis for a motion to reconsider. /

Argument The CCANP motion in no way challenges this Board's rationale for its determination that issues regarding the " handling of I)SD3s lf i

• / An attachment to the motion was a lengthy document entitled .

" Chronology of the Alleged Quadrex Conspiracy"; Applicants do not respond here to that document except to note that the document is replete with CCANP's errors of commission and omission.

8202240316 820222 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G @@D

I .

e the Quadrex Report" will be considered in the second phase of this hearing along with the issues regarding the substance of the Report. The rationale for that determination was that a

~

hearing on the handling of the Report "was not possible . . .

without investigating the substance" of the Report. (Order at 5). CCANP's motion offers no basis for reconsidering that determination.

The inseparability of the substance of the Quadrex Report from its handling in this proceeding is highlighted in CCANP's own pleading:

• CCANP proposes that the review of the handling of the Quadrex Report include "such questions as whether findings in Quadrex fit the 50.55(e) description as reportable." (Motion at 2) This obviously requires analysis of the sub-stance of the findings.

CCANP would pursue its allegations of

" conspiracy" by examining the Quadrex Report in the light of 10 CFR S 50.55(e)

(Motion at 2) -- an inquiry clearly requiring a detailed review of the Report's substance.

Clearly, CCANP seeks to litigate the substance of the Quadrex Report in both the first and second phases of this hearing.

The only matter in the motion that was not addressed by CCANP and considered by the Board at the December 1981 prehearing conference is a citation to the January 28, 1982, order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board considering HL&P's applica-tion for a permit to construct the Allens Creek Nuclear

e o

Generating Station (ACNGS) . / Thus the question before the Board is whether the order of the ACNGS Board warrants recon-sideration of the schedule. We think the answer is clearly "no." The ACNGS Board's action is totally irrelevant to this proceeding; the ACNGS Board could not and did not make any determination regarding the technical merits of the Quadrex findings; the ACNGS Board did not have available to it any technical evaluation of the significance of those findings and the Quadrex Report is not part of the record of that pro-ceeding. That Board stated:

If problems due to Brown & Root's actions or inaction were encountered at the Sou h Texas Project despite HL&P's supervision, the Board most certainly wants to know what corrective or preventive procedures HL&P will follow to assure that these problems will not recur at Allens Creek.

(Order at 3, emphasis added). HL&P believes that the issue to be heard in the ACNGS proceeding is whether, in light of the Quadrex Report, there are any additional corrective or pre-ventive procedures HL&P should follow to assure that the pro-blems alleged to have occured at STP will not recur at ACNGS.- / Thus for the ACNGS hearing (scheduled for April 1982)

• / To the extent CCAMP relies on facts which have not changed since the prehearing conference, the motion is out of time.

Objections to a prehearing conference order must be filed within 5 days of issuance of that order (10 CFR S 2.752 (c)

(1981)). Failure to file within that time period constitutes a waiver of objections.

• • / A recently completed separate Quadrex Report on Allens Creek establishes that none of the problems alleged by Quadrex with respect to STP have been found to exist in j the engineering program for Allens Creek.

i l

l l

1

_4_

one can assume arguendo that the Quadrex findings'are indicative of concerns regarding technical qualifications and proceed from there to inquire whether HL&P has taken the requisite steps to insure that problems of this type do not appear at Allens Creek.

No such assumption is possible here.

Moreover, the procedural setting of the ACNGS hearing is entirely different from the circumstances of this proceeding.

The record in that construction permit proceeding is closed, but for the remaining technical qualifications issues; here, as the Board found, consideration of the handling of the Quadrex Report at this stage, separate from the second phase, would of necessity result in two hearings that investigate the substance of the Report. Moreover, the effect of reversing this Board's order and conducting such a hearing would be to delay the issuance of the expedited decision required by CLI-80-32.

The orderly manner of proceeding provided by the Fourth Prehearing Conference Order is a matter of scheduling clearly within the Board's discretion (Houston Lighting & Power Co, (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-637, 13 NRC 367 (1981); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179, 188 (1978)) and is not prejudicial to CCANP. The Board has stated that conclusions with regard to character and compe-tence drawn during the first phase of the proceeding are subject to modification if the evidence in the second phase of the proceeding so warrants. Thus the present schedule i

permits CCANP to litigate in the second phase the issue of

f the relevance of the Quadrex Report to HL&P's character and competence, while insuring that the Board and the parties are not compelled to litigate the substance of the report in two I

separate hearings.

Conclusion l The CCANP motion presents no basis for reconsideration of the Board's Fourth Prehearing Conference Order; accordingly, the motion should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

/W Jack R. Newnfan Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Dated: February 22, 1982 Attorneys for HO!JSTON LIGHTING

& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project

& AXELRAD acting herein on behalf of itself 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. and the other Applicants, THE Washington, D.C. 20036 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City BAKER & BOTTS Public Service Board of the City 3000 One Shell Plaza of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER Houston, TX 77002 AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS f

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, _ET A_L. ) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Response to CCANP Motion for Reconsideration of Scheduling for Hearings on Applicants' Handling of the Quadrex Report have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 22nd day of February 1982.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Brian Berwick, Esq.

Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

. Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-46 Citizens Concerned About Livermore, California 94550 Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, Texas 78233 Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin Utilities, Inc. 2207-D Nueces Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, Texas 78705 Brazoria, Texas 77422

i Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ato. Tic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office'of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 M

ack R. Newm/n