ML20083M293
| ML20083M293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1984 |
| From: | Silverman D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8404170551 | |
| Download: ML20083M293 (7) | |
Text
Sf6 1
00CHETED
'JSNDC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 14 Ant 17 N0:43 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f TFf.'E OF SECFETAW
' 1. 6.T!hG A SEavtr.!
In the Matter of
)
BitANCH
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL
- COMPANY, E__T. AL.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY I.
Introduction By motion dated March 29, 1984, citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) grant it an additional ninety (90) days of discovery in Phase II of this proceeding.*/
As basis for its Motion, CCANP cites the Board's direction to the NRC Staff to provide a report on safety-related construction activities and QA program implementation at STP since the transition from Brown & Root to Bechtel and Ebasco. Since the Board's directive does not provide the basis for any addi-tional discovery, CCANP has failed to demonstrate good cause
'for the requested relief pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.711, and its Motion should be denied.
- /
CCANP Motion for Additional Discovery (March 29, 1984)
~
(Motion),
0 g
Dss) gk-II.
Argument In its Motion, CCANP argues that the Board's direction to the NRC Staff, in its recent Partial Initial Decision on Phase I of this proceeding,*/ to report on HL&P, Bechtel and Ebasco's construction and construction QA performance, "has extended into the second phase of the proceeding the inquiry posed by Issue B."
Motion at 1.
CCANP asserts that the PID was "the first notice [it] had that the record on Issue B would be extended during Phase II."
Id.
It argues that further discovery is necessary in order for it to be
" adequately prepared to participate in the litigation of this issue.
Id. at 2.
CCANP's Motion, however, is based upon a misinterpreta-tion of the Board's PID and is not supported by a showing of
" good cause" for the requested relief pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.711.
The PID did not extend or fail to resolve Issue B.
The Board stated, in fact, that " Phase I is now complete" and that its decision " addresses and resolves" Issues A through E.**/
Instead, the Board simply directed the NRC Staff to provide additional information on HL&P, Bechtel and Ebasco's performance in order to supplement the information already in the record upon which it drew,its Phase I conclu-sions.
- /
Partial Initial Decision (Operating License) (Phase I),
LBP-84-13 (March 14, 1984) (PID).
- /
PID at 6.
See also PID at 2b6.
. a
f j.
j
, l[
The Board's directive does not mean that Issue B remains unresolved or is in litigation in Phase II.
Neither i
does it imply that a new contention or issue has been admitted j
in this proceeding.
All that the Board has done is provide a mechanism for limited enhancement of the record during Phase II on an issue which was addressed and resolved in
[
Phase I.
Such enhancement is limited to the Staff's report, 4
and any comment on or supplement to such report that the parties desire to submit.
Since the Board's directive neither continued Issue B in litigation nor admitted a new i
k contention or issue, it obviously does not serve as the basis for any further discovery.
i l
l In somewhat similar circumstances, a licensing board denied a request for discovery in Florida Power & Light Co.
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4),
There, the Board granted summary. disposition with respect to all of the admitted i
contentions in the proceeding but, nevertheless, retained jurisdiction over certain matters related to one of the j
admitted contentions in order for it to obtain additional i
information and " rule with finality" on the issues.
Id. at 705.
Thus, the Licensing Board instructed the parties to provide " reasonably detailed and concrete information on these matters, by affidavits or other means.
Id. at 706.
In its subsequent order reaffirming its grant of i
_____..m_.__.,
' l
%F summary disposition, the Licensing Board denied a request by l
the intervenor for a reopening of discovery on the matter over which it had retained jurisdiction.
Florida Power &
P Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), LBP-81-16, 13 NRC 1115-16, 1119.
Finally, discovery on "the performance of HL&P, Bechtel, and Ebasco since the transition" would be particularly open-ended and burdensome.
Motion at 2.
The scope of the requested Staff report will be defined by the Staff's evaluation based upon its inspection and enforcement activities.
Should CCANP choose to comment on or supplement that evaluation, it has f
available to it all STP-related correspondence from HL&P to the NRC, as well as all materials in'the NRC public document files, including inspection and investigation reports, notices of violation and responses thereto.
There is, therefore, l
ample information available to assess performance on the Project since the replacement of Brown & Root, and broad-ranging and burdensome discovery by CCANP is neither con-templated by the Board's PID nor necessary.
III. Conclusion CCANP's request for additional discovery is premised upon its mistaken belief that the Board has extended or reopened the inquiry into Issue B such that there are addi-tional matters, upon which it has not been provided an
5-O opportunity for discovery, which it must be prepared to litigate in Phase II.
The Board's request for a report from the NRC Staff does not place a new issue into controversy in Phase II.
Furthermore, CCANP has ample information at its disposal to comment on the Staff's report or prepare its own report if it so desires.
Thus, CCANP's request for additional discovery is not supported by a showing of good cause and its Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Y
J Afn L
Jack R. Ne' man w
Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Finis E. Cowan 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Dated:
April 13, 1984 ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING l
NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, of the South Texas Project acting N.W.
herein on behalf of itself and Washington, D.C.
20036 the other Applicants, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by BAKER & BOTTS and through the City Public 3000 One Shell Plaza Service Board of the City of Houston, Texas 77002 San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT. COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS w
. ~ - _ - _
w I
DOCKETED U1tlRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO'd4 NR 17 Amn43 l
I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J t itt 0F SECELIAH" (M:KEltNG & SEFVICF.
BRANCH o
In the Matter of
)
)
r HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
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 Additional Discovery" have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States. Mail,
'first class, postage prepaid, on this 13th day of April, 1984.
Charles Bechhoefer,-Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Environmental Protection Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Judge Ernest E. Hill Hill Associates Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator 210 Montego Drive Barbara A. Miller Danville, California 94526 Pat Coy Citizens Concerned About Nuclear. Power.
Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Executive Director 5106 Casa Oro Citizens for Equitable San Antonio, TX 78233 Utilities, Inc.
Route 1, Box 1684 Lanny Sinkin.
Brazoria, TX 77422 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78701 t
t 4
Robert G.
Perlis, Esq.
Offic? of the Executive Legal DL.ector U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the secretary U.
S.
Nuclcar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
W --
y.
6?
i k
i 4