ML20091P945

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 840522 Memorandum & Order Ruling on Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion for Addl Discovery & Applicant Motion for Sanctions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20091P945
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	06/05/1984
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406130230
Download: ML20091P945 (6)

Text

. /.;  ; RELATED CCREF.S?qcf.N.,Q D' KE7r-

%['

UN1iED S14iEb OF AMEH1CA

'84 JIR -8 .o3:00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

~

~ 1EFORE THE A10NIC SA141 Y AlJD LICEN51NS B05RD.C"r . < > . .c .

. EM: f' In-ths Mcttee of- (

)

H N d T o n *. !'3 H 'I N G - A N D ( Docket Noc. bO-49e oL t'Ut.a h C D.M P A N i , ET AL. .)59-499 OL (Soutn To::as Pro.}ect. (

i Units 1 and 2) (

Ci t i c en r, Concerned About . Nuclear Powas- (CCANP) Motion for

.Pcconsiderction of. ASLB's Memorandum and Order (Reling on CCANP Mctions for Additional Discovery and Applicants' Motion- for

__.._ . _ ___.. _ __S. enc.KL9asl dukec! t!er 221 12&l___ __________ __-

un Msy 22, 1904, the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board in.

this proceeding issued a memorandum and order ruling on two-CCANP

( mc'irns for ackli ti onal ditc.overy and on a motion f o* sanctions by A;: n ' i en t 3. j 1

Anonc the rulings of the floard was a ruling .that the Partial Init191-Cecision in Phase 1 oF this proceeding hed feroclosed any; further inquiry into either the past lack of charactor or lack of competence on .the part of HL&P as a-basis for . license denial, c:rceot insofar ne the failure of'HLhP to provide ^ the 'Quadrex .!

Roccrt to the Board and Conmission: might be probative of - lack of v

ch2ractcr. Memorandum and Order at Il 6.

, ' 85 en.: "

CCGNP .believnu that thin Memorandum - and Orderf in; entirely, Mo of. d i ni.over y , . ovi denc e ,

em

.;wcep 2 nq i n i tu -e::cl ut ion crosc- +

n. o

~ 8g -

2

- ci: smi nati on , and -findinas?on the assence of.the.Duadrenl Report.

r- 3 g

, 1at o 'he only reat on Quadren . was c:tcluded f rom Phase I : was ' to permit - a g.

~

ctmpreh'enuive discussien-of what happened af ter ; HLbF' had : ti me' to-

$n.&-

develop ' remedial meanurcsif or.. the f indir!gs of : deficiency- in ' the n

K LOuadrer Report; the (findings' themselves wereEnever consider.ed Sl

1 irrelevar. Oc the deci sion to be ma-;- in Phct.2  !. Now that delay hes becorc ' b3r !o discovery, 2nt 0:.'ction of evidence, and tr.e mal:ing of ~;rdincs.

In . : t F ; ' a r l Init:d ecci n 2 0 . , the Eos,rd did consider the possibili:. that a lack o+ c on d eu cr trothfulness could be a

. chc.racter -ic f ec t so cevere as to s;&rrant license denial. PID at

'2 3 . Yet tnc Ecard faceclose; ans/ inquiry as to charactor stemming fron the "evel ati ons of thc Duadr e: Ftport, other than the c:icumstsac;s surrounding noti f i c a t; on of NRC and the parties eab o u t t r. c. repcrt. The possibilltv that evi dence would be c c-ve l op e c t .a t cver a long parlod ci time, not just from May 7, 1981 f er m - d , HL?P i-ept the Commi r,si on in the dark about Brown and Ront's and HL6F*s inabilities to design and engineer the project . ionored er ra;rcted. C JJJ? - urgns the Board to reconsi de - p.n c ;h a r in lighL of the SID this possibility can really Le ;gnored or, if rejetttd. whether the Bocrd hac any c.vi denti a . bsc;s for rejecting this connibility.

I n v .M i n g cuch a ruling, the Poc;rd it cito a:1.uming that the some cn ses the Board found to be the roanon for earlier lack of coa.n ple.n _ c . i.e. inm.perience and Icng linen of communication, ar ce r.: :c u m 1, . the name cannec fcr the lack of competence c'em n r d r i. . 1 r" t h t; Du - dr e.' report. The Board reaches this ar.clusic, t 3 sed on no evidcnce whatrE?.wcr. The Board annumes

t no e.idence could be develc;ec tc demonstrate any other russon. Cn what basis does the Boa.rc deny this possibility? The Doard's s s zus.pti cnc and conclusi ons t;ithout bencfit of evidence are unu.ar inted.

The TcErd's approach s,c cms, i l l c ol cal in light of the Board's u

,s interont in pursuing the " corrective actior.n"  : sten on the ,

Quedrex findinos. Preci sely how are we colny tc j.dc e whether the correctivt actions f olloual currently r e s c '. v e any safety.

cignificent de f i c i enc i es tv.aal ed by the Ousdre: :-:: ort if wo are not contemplating t.ny inquir's i nt o whether er wh. t.c particular deficiency occurred? If we do not I:now whether t e deficiency in 4act occurred and if'so why, how precisely docE trs Board propose v'e judae the adequacy of corrective action? F- e:: amp l e , if Du adr e:. said comething was a problem and Bechtcl s ai d it was not and therefore no corrective action was taken are we to take Occhtc1';. wcrd for the truth?

Even un the ono questi en the Board will s. t i l . entertain -

the notificst:an and reportability questic, .he swoopinq e.:cl uti on of evidence by the Dor.rd could have s:ma effect on the ,

i natero of the inquiry and conclusions. Presumab l y . the Board does contsider it possible ta mal:e a f i ndi ng that HLt :' chould have notifiud the flRC and the parties of the Quadrex Rr:c -t either in i t s crkti ret y or in its particular findincs and ' the al leest some of the Quadre>: findings were ultimately reportecla. Exactly how ui11 the Oundre" Repor L tse pr t.,of of nntifioh,2e cC reporte.ble f i ndintas if the report itself is not. arimitted int: c-vi d enco 'for the t. ruth of what it contains" hou c att the Eoced determine i-F a finding war, ul timately repor tablea unless the E: art cnows whether the finding documents. comething that in fact "

..ap:ened? Is the L> card . making an assumption about the willingr.cs s of HLLP to ciipolate 4. h a i the Duodre:. Poput t ui11 be'adm1t.tE ;nto evidence for the truth of what it contains? If co, on what c:resentations

l l by the Applicant cca the L' car d ma! r auch an as sump t i on'.'

Does the 1-:o t r t; ccnrider an fjRC 12ndino cf saf cty-ci gni f i cI nt Lo be relevant tc the notiilability or reportability of a

! 1 nrii no" 11 ce: . f .c t, can t h e ! " d.. ,

f i r: ding bc p r ob i- t : .c Unicss it 1 E; a02emed the finding document: something that happened?

, Thesc are only a few ct thr: problems and questions raised cy the Paard's Memorandum and Order af May 22.

The timino of the discovery provided by the Board ir anotner ccocern. CCANP is given enLil August 31 to complete its dinrevcry. CCANP's repreventative will be preparing for the har examination which cccurs in the last weel: of July through much of i ha! period, but erm Ls no r c< l i e f on that point. There is, hr,we,or, the proble.n that th9 Staff i r, given until Au';ust 24 to fi1c a bricf en t. h a c p ot i. c Lo 11 ti of the Dundre: Rcpcrt and thc individual f i nsti ngs. The partien uill then have 20 days to rc, pond to thct Lrlef.

CCef!P will therefore h a v t. t.o porcibility of conduc t i ng discovery knowing the pc2itionc of the parties on the only issue the 17aard cccmn willing to cuplorr (other than remedi al ) . The Ar.pltrants ha n a i r c aW, refoced to answer State of Tenas i n i r,rt rme t ar J f.c ca the repor ability question, citing the ftrt.!acomiro br1af: a .= a n c,:" u ,0.

t ;t. Al H - (nom- t t.o l'o,a d io i cconsidN ile Memorantium and Ord:r of M arc 22 and alter that Memorandum and Order to provide One rollowing:

1. Dicccvery not IiniLed as to any a s p ec. L of tne Duadre: Repor t.

2. Such di scovrery to canoncoce af ter the filing of tnc

e r

briefn on not2fication i..id reporti.tility by t.1 1 parties or ,

a l t t-r n a t i vel y an order to the A.pplicants that such ouestions are to be ancutrcci regacrdlecs et uhethcr the brie +n base been filed, or not.

2.  !!o defining of the iscues to be litiacted unti) after the discovery and the prehcaring conference, i.e. recission of the Ltoard 's li mi tati cn on the icsues set forth in the Ma.aorandum and Ordor.

CCAtJP can appreci alc the Boar d 's desire to cut short this r:r oc c edi ng . Certainly there is no enjoyment f c:- CCANP in proloncing thic procen. H: Wycr, the Memorandum and Order of May 22 is so restrictive as le the scope of the Phase II proceeding i t c.ru c!i s c o ur '. t c1 conclit inn t h i, t CU Atji ' feels compc!1ed to protest and c ou l: reli e f .

Recpecti ul ! y cubmitted.

Lanny Sinkin tid W. 7th, Suito 220 Austin, lexas 78701-(S12) 478-7197 Representative fcr

'intervenor Li: irens Concerned About Huc l ear Poutr. Inc.

~'

IMtod: i!une S. 1004

' ' , y- -

- it y li!PL' t it t- . t e u i t (, .

9; .

C

!!ULLI nN 1:H4UE

UM* H ' Alum 1 li U!i li!L (*1 UM j ' 6(.! 6 Y ;!!D L ICEN3 !!Ki !!OliHD Inxthe Mattor of (

)

NOUSTON LIGHTINO'AND < Occhet Non.50-49G OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) 5(.*-499 OL E cuth Texas Project, ,'i Units 1 and- 2) (

GE811EICOJE OE ME8 MICE I hereby certify-that copies of CITIZENS . CONCERNED. ABOUT:

. NUCLEAR POWER, INC. (CCANP) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF'ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON CCANP'S MOTIONS FOR LADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS) DATED MAY 22, 1984 were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail,.fitst class postago paid .

to the following individuals and cntitics on.the 6th day of. June 1 N34  ;.

Chr.rics Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Ch si rrnan Aust. Atty. Gen.

• At.wie Safety and Licensing Duard State of Tenas Lt . L . Nuclear Regulatorv Commission Environmtl. Protection Washinoton, D.C. 20555 P. O. Bon 12540, Capitol Sta.

Dr. James. C. Lomb, III

(.dmini strati ve Judge ~ Robert G. Per1ic,-Ecquire-31:3 Woodhaven Road Office of.the-Exec. Leg..Dir.

Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514- U.S. . Nuclear 1 Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill Admini strative Judge Jack R. Mewman, Ecquire Hill Associate =; 1025 Connecticut: Avenue, N.W.

210 Monteco Drive Washington, D.C. 20936 Danville, California 94026 .. ,

Molbert Schwarr', Esquire.

Bal:or and Botts Nrt. .Pecqy Ouchorn 300 One'Ehel1 P1ana D:ecutive Director, C.E.U. . Houston, Tenan- 77002

'Poute 1 .- Don 1684 Ur ator 1 a , ' l en ar, 77422.. LAtomic.Sofety pnd Licensing'iBd. ~

U.S. Nucieir Regulatory ~Comm..

Mi t I f am t-i. Jardan._.III, Esq. Wo sh i n g t on",c . D . C . 20555- ,

tinrcon, Weine biJordan  %-

• v01 3 Street',.N.W., Butte--430 e dtomic Safety andJLicensing;-

EAppeal-_ Doord1

~

Wa sh i n g t on ,- 1 D . C. ;20007-U. S.; Mut1 ear ' Regul a tory Wonim. '

' Pat Co'/. .

-Moshington', D.C.- 20555 -

S106 Casa Oro-

, San Antpnio,;Tm ac 78233  : Docketing-and. Service Section.-

.Of fica of the;Socretary .

. U. B. Nuc1 car.f Regul atery "Comm. g Wsshingtcn, D.C. 20555?

/ l en-clis quis .e ens ese seen ese ese ye eoe e op w 3 suo me esp est ese e.

og n aoss e esa

,;Lanny- inkinL c, . . _ _ _ _ _ __ -. _ _