ML20072U021

Response to Sixth Set of Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20072U021
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/04/1983
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8304110143
Download: ML20072U021 (6)

Text

,_ -

I g C" REMTED CORRESPONDENCB UNITED ETATES OF AMERICA CO2 e,-

NUCLEAR REGULATOR'r COMMISSION '?""

EEE9BE IHE SIQUIC 56EEIY BNQ LICEU51NG BQGBD'83 4 p ?,8 ^ 0:3 In the Matter of (

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ( Docket Nos. 5 024 9 E ( 0 L ;[ [ f i.l COMPANY. .ET 6Ls ) 50-499 OL~'

(

(South Texas Project. )

Units 1 and 2) (

CCANP RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUDENIS IQ CG6NE Based on a conversation with attorneys for Applicants, CCANP is providing the f ollowing response to Applicants' sixth set of; interrogatories and requests for production of documents. As will be clear from what follows, CCANP is not answering directly many of the interrogatories. The interrogatories are quite comprehensive and place a heavy buroen on CCANP to analyze every fi ndi ng in the Quadrex Report. Bechtel's responses, end the NRC's responses.

Instead. CCANP hereby sets forth the basic position of CCANP as to the issues CCANP intends to pursue and the basic posi ti on CCANP takes on those issues. Should this response not prove satisfactory to the Applicants, Applicants reserve the richt to f i l 'e motions to compel with the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board.

I. Introduction This proceeding is an adversary proceeding. Un' der NRC regulations, the burden is on the intervenor (or any party other than the Applicant) to raise an issue which the ASLB agrees needs to be examined before any decision is made whether to grant. or deny a license.

Once the issue is admitted, the Applicant bears the burder of proof on that issue. This burden is correctly placed since the Applicant is responsible for protecting the lives and property of tens of thousands of people.

In this proceeding, both the ASLB and -the intervenor introduced issues related to. the Quadrex Corporation study of the design and engineering process at -the- South Texas Nuclear Project.

Shortly after the ASLB received the Quadrex Report, the Board held a special meeting in Bethesda, Maryland. This meeting resulted in an order setting a ' sp eci al - hearing to . consider stopping all saf ety-rel ated work on the nuclear pr oj ect. The Board considered 'this order so important that all three administrative judges signed the order, rather than the customary.

chairman's signature.

8304110143 830404 1

,PDR ADDCK 05000498 v PDR 3 50.3

~

~

The special. hearing was-never held because the Applicants-Evoluntarily stopped work on~ the project.

CCANP submitted a lengthy motion _for new _ contentions . based on the findings in the'Quadren Report but subsequently agreed to the suggestion of the NRC Staff that the questions raised by tne handling _end substance. of the' Quadrex Report be admittec generally for consideration of cIl aspects of these two issues.

CCANP's position is that we'cballenge the Applicants -to provide any credible explanation for their failure to turn the Quadrex Report over to the A5LB and the NRC Staff. That is_their first burden.

We also challenge the Applicants to provide any cred2ble-explanation. for their failure to report more than three of the hundreds of findings i n the Quadrex Report purcuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e). Speci f i cal l y, we challenge the Applicants to even argue, let alone prove, that only three of the hundreds of findings represented a breakdown in their . quality assurance program. That is their second burden.

We also challenge the Applicants to provide any credible explanation for _their failure, as expressed in their earlier testimony, to doubt the quality of Brown and Root's work prior to firing . Brown and Root as architect-engineer. That is the Applicants' third burden.

We also challenge the Applicants to provide any~ credible-explanation for their failure to ' fire Brown and Root- as architect-engineer before commissioning the_Quadrex Corporation study or immediately af ter the delivery of. the Quadrex Recort.

• That is their fourth burden.

CCANP's position is that there are no credible exolanations for the Applicants' failures other than a lack of character and competence.

CCANP similarly challenges the NRC Staff to provide any credible explanation for why they concluded there was'no need for the Applicants to deliver the Quadrex Report to the ASLB'and the Commission.

CCANP's position is that it is incredible that the NRC Staff could reach such a conclusion given the strong reactions of every.

NRC person coming into contact with the report, from the field investigators who discovered the report to the ASLB.

CCANP's position is that a prima-facie _ case exists for theJ necessity of turn'ing the Quadrex Report'over to the. Commission and for firing Brown and Root before the Quadrex: Report. and certainly after receipt of the report.

II. Response The Applicants filed their Sixth Set of Interrogatories and-

Requests for Production of Documents to CCANP. This reponse. is not a direct answer.to these interrogatories but.rather is .for purposes of setting forth~CCANP's position,- _so the- Applicants

~

.will be on notice of 1what ' issues CCANP intends to litigate _and CCANP's positionaan those_ issues.

~The interrogatories ~ -are extremely _ burdensome,. requiring-CCANP to analyze hundreds.of1 findings on' multiple i ssues.. .CCANP-does- not: have the engineering staff to do such 'a lengthy.

I-2:

s

enelysis. CCANo of f ers thic reponse in lieu of cetailed answert and otherwise objects to enswering the interrogatories, e4 cent as such enswere are set f orth herein.

1. YE5!

2. CCANP's position is that the Applicants violated every regul ati on on the books regarding notification to the NRC regarding the Quadrex Report and its findingt, including but nor limited to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendices A and 5; 10 C.F.R. Fa~

20; and 10 C.F.R.-50.55(e).

3. CCANP does not questi on Applicants' " commissioning" of tne Ouedrex Report other then to note that the Applicents waited until the project was well along before commissioning an independent consultant to check on the work Brown and Root was-doing. CCANP's position is that the Applicants showod poor jucgment, lack of perception, and lack of resolve in wai ting so Icng.

As to the " handling" of the Report, CCANP's position is that Apclicants nade a deliberete effort to deflect NRC attention f rom the Report by selecting a handful of findingu to bring . to the attention of the NRC, by not testifyina about the Report when oiven the opportuni ty, and by not providing cocies of the Renort to the ASLB and the Commi ssion.

4. (a) The improper act in the commissioning of the report was not acting sooner. The improper act in the handling of the_repcrt wet the failure to turn the entire report over to the ASLb ano the NRC or to notify the NRC of dozens of the findings.

(b) Jerome Goldberg and the others he consulted with regarding turning the report over to the NRC or notifying the Commission are responsible f or the vi olations all eged.

(c) (1 ) lu C.F.R. Part 50, Appendices A and Bt 10 C.F.R. Pert 21: the pri nci pl es of disclosure enunciated in the Partial Initial Decision in Cgngumerg Pgwet Cgt (111dl and Pl ant. Units 1 and 2), 14 NRC 1768, LBF-81-63 (1981)

(ii) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.

(d) At the monent. CCANP does not have the resources to cell experts.

5. The Guadrex Report documents a chaotic and error-ricden cetign and engineering process as well as a non-functioning quality assurance program.

6. The Quadrex Report speeks for itself as to the chaos, errors, and quality assurance failures.

7. Not at this time.

8. See 7.

9. Not at this time. To reiterate what CCANP told Applicantc' representatives on more than one occasion, CCANP has little interest in litigating Issue B given the " independent and 3

- '. b9

,:e E' f.

t- .

cufficient"- ' mandate of the' Commission.. Tne only.crenc CCANE -is

!J interestec 2n-litigsting..regercing EN-619 are.those aress- where-bechtel .cisaareed with1a Quacrew finding.- ~1r sucn creas. 'tne-j' JOuadrex personnel who.conduc.ted the:stucy whicn reatbec those L ' findings-should ce' celled to respond to Bechtell's . di sagreemer ts.:

'Otherf then those areas.

L CCANP hes. alreadv. expressed its gcnerar objection ~.that Bechtel was not'truly independent but doet . not ' .

intend Ic .ex plors ~Bechtel's " resol uti ons" of' Ouadrex findings.

~

I 10. See W.-

I 1' 1. CCANP contends NFsC ILE 62-02 is a repudietion.of the- NWs own reculetions.regarding-how the Applicants.-snould heve r ewt en i to the Quadrex Report. CCANP contends the handlino of the.Quadrex ,

Report should have- been found to be a Severity- Level. III violation (f ailure to make e required SO.55(er report) esc el ated to. a Severity Level I violation ~for: reasons cf wilfulness,- the-i -nature of the omitted iindings as constituting a meterial false statement. the length of time the viol ations exi sted prior - to-discovery, the opportunity available;to Applicants for years to discover tne violetions,'and the economic advantage to Applicants

(. of hiding the report, so they would not have to fire Brown- an d -

l. Root. A civil penalty, an Order to Show Cause as to- why. the.

construction permit should not be revoked, and an:immeciate'stop work order on the project were the appropriate.NRC responses.

l L 13. Not at'this time-l 14. In repeatina the findings regarding the.be.ndling' of the Ocadren Report, I&E E2-12 is seri ously in error.

15.'See 14.

16. Not at thi s ti me.

~

17 At thi s time, CCANP does not intend to. cell expert witneeses.

Should resources become available to do. so, .CCANP -will i mmedi atel y notify eli perties and support- en extension ci j discovery time to enable all parties to explore the positions'o+- '

CCANP's experts.

18. CCANP does not intend tofcall any wi'tnesses, but may request

. the NRC to produce witnesses and the Board to call- witnesses L

(depending on who the App'.icants. cell).

. CCANP relies on the-Atomic Energy Act.of...1954 as-amended,

(

19. ~

.t h e .

l' rules and regulations of the NRC, 'and;the reports oi Quadrex.

-Bechtel, Applicants,

~

and the NRC -- all ' of whi ch . are- al r ea d y~ -

available.to the Applicants.

4 4 ..>

I C ..

o , ,

-,s 20 All ent w e ere br Lanny Alan Sini'.in Rescert'ul1 y . sut mi".tec.

$.?.M.

n J.-s Lenny Alan Sinkin Counsel for Inte venor.

Dated:-Acril. 4. :oE . Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power. I r.c .

2207 D. Nueces Austin, Texas 75705 (512) 478-3290-

'5 TATE GF TEXA5 (

)

COUNTY OF TRAVIS (

LEF0F.E ME, the unde-signed authority, on this day person &lly apoesrea LANNY ALAN SINKIN, who upon his oath stntec that he hat answered the foregoina Interrogator-ies in Applicants' Sixth 5ct of Interrogetories and Pequests for Production of. Docurnent s te CCANP in hi s capacity as counsel for Citizens Cone.ernec About Nuclear Power, Inc. and that ell statements contained-therein erF true and correct to the best of hi s knowl edae and belie f.

l .

P LANNY 4LAN SANKIN SUB5CfiIBED AND SWORN TO DEFORE ME by the said LANNY ALAN E llh 1N on .thi s 5th day of April 1923.

f. N .-

Notary Puolic ir

• .a -A'U nd fe-Travis County. T e >: as hy Commission expires:

BAREARA A. EENJAMiN i '

-- MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 10 2986 4

f'

.5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E X EI ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS5 ION REE9BE ISE @IQd]C @@EEIY 6ND LICEN519@ RQeSD .g3 GR -8. M0 :36 GESIIEIG9IE QE @gSylCE '

s. L ^- 'iita I hereby certify that copies of CCANP RESPON5E5 00CID hNCEI APPLICANTS' SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST 5 F09 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO CCANP was served by deposit in t h c-United States Mail, first class postage paid or by Express Mail

(*) to the f oll owing indi viduals and entities on the 5th day of April 1983.

Charles Bechhoefer Esq. William S. Jordan, Esq.

Chief Administrative Judge Harmon and W'eiss Atomic Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street, NW Board Panel Suite 506 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20555 jF Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

- Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge Axelrad 313 Woodhaven Road 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Washington, D.C. 20036 Ernest E. Hill Robert G. Perlis '

Administrative Judge office of the Executive Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Legal Director University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C. 20555 Livermore, CA 94550 , ,

Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Citizens for Equitable Washington, D.C. 10555 Utilities Route 1, Box 1684 '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Brazoria, Texas 77411 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Brian Berwick, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas Docketing and Service-Section Environmental Protection Office of the 3ecretary Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Tom Hudson, Esquire %h Baker and Botto La nn.)[/ S1 nki n One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 7700:2 I

l t

l

. - - - , ., -,.._, ..