ML20126G961

Applicants' Identification of Witnesses & Substance of Testimony

ML20126G961
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/02/1981
From:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20126G945	List: ML20126G941 ML20126G951 ML20126G955 ML20126G961
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104020583
Download: ML20126G961 (11)

Text

.

e

?V*MI 6y mm.% mesena ym s ememe OR O.n.OO V" rMeL.% i 6.%

s. w*CvL ~.

i .a. 3 m.%

~ ns=*

v u L.y .m.evmse

.% ;evw n pv em

.A4. - -. vn .y, OO d v e u- c

.~

=mR

~~-v - v.--u : n . n M. _n. =_~.v. 1.sC,. mi e

vs.15.vG e_ .4 e

s un,.=3 In the Natter of 5 5

HCUSTON LIGHTING i PCWER 5 Occket Nos. 50-499 OL COMPANY, IT AL. 5 50-499 CL 5

(Scrch Texas Project, 5 Units 1 and 2) 5 March 2, 1981 Applicants' Identification of Witnesses and Substance of Testimon'/

Applicants herebv. identifv. the following individuals as the witnesses they presently intend to call in this proceeding and the substance of their testimony.

Mr. Donald D. Jordan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Houston 'ighting and ?ower Company (HL&P), will tescify concerning the general management Organization of HL&P, HL&?'s background and policy in dealing with the public and regul.atory agencies, and the reaction of the highes management levels of HL&P to the NRC Show Cause Order.

A panel of witnesses including Mr. J. H. Goldberg, EL&?'s Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction, and Mr. Richard A. Pratar, EL&?'s Manager, Quality Assurance, will cestify concerning HL&P's current management of the 81040205 83

l overall project activities of STP, including the quality l

assurance (QA) program relating thereto. Mr. Goldberg will l l

describe HLG2's organization and staff resources for such ]

management.and how HL&P is. fulfilling '.ts management respon-1 sibilities. Mr. Frazar will similarly describe HL&P's organization and staff resources for management and implemen-tation of its QA responsibilities relating to design and construction, and how those responsibilities are being properly discharged.

A panel of witnesses including Mr. George W.

l 1

Cprea, Jr., HL&P's' Executive Vice President,_ Mr. Joseph W.

Briskin, HL&P's Project Manager-Houston Operations, Mr. Frazar, j and Mr. John M. Amarai, Manager of Quality Assurance of )

Bechtel Power Corporation (Sechtel), will testify concerning experience of HL&P in the design and construction of STP prior to the NRC investigation (79-19) and Show Cause Order and the actions taken by HL&P as a result thereof. Mr. Cprea will provide an everview of STP's compliance history, including the evolution of HL&P's QA program, and will discuss HL&P's actions with respect to QA concerns before the Show Cause Order, and how HL&P's management reacted promptly and fully to the NRC investigation and Show Cause Order. Mr. 3riskin will describe the organisation and work of the task force formed by HL&P to respond to the Show Cause Order. Mr. Frazar

will discuss the changes which have been made in the adminis- -

trative controis in the STP QA program as a result of the Show Cause Order. Finally, Mr. Amaral will describe 3echtel's-reccmmendations regarding the ST? QA organization and explain the basis for such recommendations.

A panel of witnesses including Dr. Knox M. Breem, 1

Jr., Senior Vice President of the Brown & Root, Inc. (S&R)

Power Group and Mr. Raymond J. Vurpillat, S&R's Manager of Power Group Quality Assurance, will testify en 3&R's imple-mentation of the STP QA program, 3&R management's actions with respect to QA concerns before the NRC investigation and Show Cause Crder and the 3&R changes in personnel, organization and procedures in implementation of the STP QA program subsequent to the Show Cause .rder. This testimony will also include a discussion of B&R's attitude toward QA/QC from a management perspective.

. Three panels of witnesses will testify concerning the concrete placement program at ST? and related. matters.

The first panel will include Mr. Joseph F. Artuso, President of Construction Engineering Consultants, Mr. Gerald R.

Murphy, S&R's STP Assistant Civil-Structural Project Engineer, and Mr. Ralph R. Hernandez, HL&P's Supervising Engineer, Civil-Structural Engineering. Mr. Artuso and Mr. Murphy will describe the organization and scope of activities of l

l

r the task force established to review STP concrete placements in respcnse to the Show Cause order, the studies and analyses conducted by the consultants retained to review the concrete placements, and the conclusions reached as a' result of the -

efforts of the task force and the consultants, including the conclusion that the ST? concrete construction satisfies the design requirements and is comparable to or better than construction of similar facilities subject to similar require-ments. Mr. Hernande: will discuss HL&P's role in the concrete task force effort.

The second panel, including'Mr. Albert D. Fraley, Project General Superintendent of Brown & Root Construction, Mr. Gordon R. Purdy, S&R's Quality Engineering Manager, and Mr. Robert A. Carvel, HL&P's Project QA Supervisor, Civil-Structural, will describe recent improvements made in the STP concrete program and the status of the restart program for ccmplex concrete placements. ,

The third panel will include Mr. Murphy, Mr. Gerald L.

Fisher, S&R's STP Civil-Structural Project Eng..;aer, Mr. Charles M. Singleton, E&R's ST? Civil Discipline Quality Control Superintendent, Mr. Hernandez, Mr. David G. Long, HL&?'s Senior Engineer, Site Engineering, and Mr. Artuso.

Their testimony will describe several activities comprised i

4 l

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

I I

I

. l

-l i

i w .4 . . ..a *"a. o ?.. ." - r. . .- a. . e wo r '< ,

~

.. - , e .- .- a.. ' a . -= --d ...

-- . ... c ' " d--d .. . o .". -

tainment shell placement, cadwelding, installation of water-prcefing membranes and rebar erectio.m. In the course of their testimony, the members of this panel will cover the' >

. -... . e . . . .. ., .r. s o .e ..w. e 4 . . . o .-./ . . o . - ,sh _4 ..w.

3

.. . 2. . e . ., .w. _c o .- o.n3 4 ..g activities. With respect to Contentien 1(2) (alleged voids

~

n the concrete wall enc 10 sing the containment. building),

the testimony will describe the extensive investigation that  ;

has been performed of potential voids in the ST? containment l building walls, the repairs that have been performed, and

• -.b.e a = = u . a .". . a. s *.". a . s ' 3. . d _# .4. . a".*. "< o d d.s do

. . o* a..x_ds.. W 4. ..b.

respect Oc Contentions 1(5, and 1(6) (alleged lost documen- . ,

tation relating to cadwell inspections and alleged cadwelds not capable of being vercified), the testimony will explain the cadwelding process, the applicable requirements, and the steps followed in making, inspecting, documenting and testing cadwelds; will provide the results of cadweld tecting at  ;

STP; will describe the basis for concluding that such cadwelds are adequate; and will respond to allegations concerning i missing documentation. With respect to Contention 1(4)

(alleged damaged membrane seals in the containment structure),

the testimony will explain the purpose and use of water.croofin- ,

membranes at STP, the QA-QC program relating thereto and the aszurances of the adequacy of existing waterproofing membranes.

)

+

f

_a 6

, - . , - - - - - - . - - - . - ,, .w - m -4 ._,,-e ...y. .,r_. ,.y-.,---,,%, ,.% wg.~ ,---;-, , ,,,.-w . , . ~ , . ,

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

- i r

1 With respect to Contention 1(5) (alleged rissing reinforcing' steel bars in the containment), the testimony will explain

.the process for designing, installing and inspecting rebar at STP, and'will describe the review performed of alleged missing rebar and the basis for :encluding that the as-built rebar configurations meet the structurat, design requirements.

Three. panels of witnesses will testify concerning f

he placement and compaction of backfill at STP. The first' panel will include Mr. Berr.t Pettersson, B&R's Assistant ,

r Civil-Structural Project Engineer, Mr. Charles S. Hedges, Project Manager for Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Mr. W. S.

McKay, Corporate, Quality Assurance Manager for Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL), and Mr. Timothy K. Logan, formerly-HL&?'s Lead Engineer, Civil QA. Mr. Pettersson, Mr. Hedges and Mr. McKay will describe the development of the backfill placement and inspection program at STP (including applicable requirements), the resolution of problems identified before j the Show Cause Order, the backfill verification program undertaken as a result of the Show Cause Order, and the current backfill placement program. Mr. Logan w ;l discuss EL&P's surveillance of backfill placement at STP and HL&P's participation in the backfill verification task force.

o k

6

e i

The second panel will include Mr. Stanley D.

• Wilson, a private geotechnical consulting engineer, and Mr. Thomas Kirkland, Senior Principal Engineer of Shannon & f Wilson, Inc., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers. They will describe the evaluation of the engineering. adequacy of the t Category 7 structural backf;11 at STP performed by_a committee f

of independent geotechnical engineering experts, which.was chaired by Mr. Wilson and supported by Mr. Kirkland and his i staff. They will state and explain the conclusions reached by the committee, including its overall conclusion that the condition of the backfill is ' entirely adequate 'for the design reqairements at STP.

The third panel will include Mr. Pettersson and -

Mr. Jon G. White, HL&P's STP Licensing & Technical Coordinator, who will testify on the alleged false statements in the FSAR concerning laboratory testing on backfill materials and inspection of backfill placement referred to in the Show Cause Order and will demonstrate that these statements were not " false". Mr. Pettersson will explain how the FSAR .

sections were drafted and reviewed, the programmatic require-ments described therein, certain deviations from those f

programmatic requirements, and the review and evaluation of the significance of those deviations. Mr. White will explain P

?

-7

. _ - . , - . . _ . _. m, . - . - . . , . - . , , , - . . . _ . , , . . . . -- ,,.4- - -- , ~ ,

E EL&? t s procedure for preparation and review of the ?SAR, j 4

including the sections a :ssue.

Two panels of witnesses will testify concerning the velding program at STP. The first panel will include Mr. T. J. Natarajan, 3&R's Materials Engineering Manager, Mr. M. Sullivan, NUTECH's Projecn Manager for STP, Mr. Purdy and Mr. Logan D. Wilson, HL&?'s Project Quality Assurance '

i Supervisor, Mechanical /NDE Discipline. Mr. Natarajan and ,

Mr. Purdy will d= scribe the development of the welding 1

program and procedures at STP (including applicable require-monts), the welding experience early in the project and the background of the issuance of the 3&? welding Stop Work Crder of April 11, 1980. Mr. Natarajan and Mr. Sullivan will describe the organization and activitias of the welding task force, including work done in response to the NRC Show Cause Order, as well as the overall results of tie task force activities. Mr. Wilson will describe HL&?'s involvement in the developmeht and implementation of the welding program a +a c . .e .

The second panel will include Mr. M. D. Muscente, S&R's Proj ect Welding Manager, Mr. Purdy, Mr. James L.

Hawks, 3&R's Engineering Project Manager, Mr. J. R. Molleda, HL&?'s Lead Project Engineer, Mechanical-Nuclear, and Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Muscente and Mr. ?urdy w;11 describe the welding program .

i ehe

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

o . ..

1

'.e

. m. . o v a ...^. .. a .=..'...a -

..*~a *

.a~-.=....a c' .. ..*. e ..- . Wo . .4 v~. ~ ^ =. .. .n safety-related welding and the r e- e.mmin a ti on , repair and restar program, including schedule, manpower and results to date. Mr. Hawks will describe :he program for engineering evaluation of inaccessible AWS structural welds being con-s . . . c, a w ,y .x.

-u .y n .- . c o . . s u, . . a . . . , 4n c .3 ,,d- .4 .,. g ..s.e c u,. .- m... .

a..,o.

a .-

and schedule. Mr. Molleda and Mr. Wilson will discuss u..cav s .- ., , ., .

r

. .w. e .s e ., a .s .,i g . a s~s. .c - ,. . e a .c .eo - . , . . s-

. .4 . . ..u. e

. a. ,.r 4..ns . - ~~.. . ee .t a 4 . . ,n 2.o .o - a...

The fo'. lowing witnesses will testify on contentions o .c w .w.. . 4 . . . e.-.< ... .. C 3 .e , . v, w. m . X . . n . . .. w.a '. ..w.. a,e.. on . n 4 onS have not been covered by the .crevious testimon.y. Wi ' .

..a.-,c. .o v .n....4.v,n

.r. .. ,(1)

. (su..-..,4.,.c, .<. . .. .. r. o .4 n . w.e. c a a- o....a .-

r- -

o .c .he

. vi.4 . - M o r..u. a .4 . a ., r e . . ., a i

. -- . 3.,m,x.. 4 3 4 a .- , n o u .4 . a

- .s.. , , M..

p , ck..a d- W.

5. = ". e * .' e '] , S&R'e A s s i--e a n . 7. .~, .4 .e a. . d . .g ." . o ,i e ~. ~.

Manager-Special Services, will describe the error and its e a u e e. . .w. . , .am... .a .. d s .4 , . 4 .c .4 c a- ...- o..

, . . ,o .e. w. o. ..o,

. . . . ...w.. . . m. . .. o. s 4 4. i.

. a " e. ae .d g . . a..d 4 . a- . .... y. ' .i a .- a. d.4 .5 a .1 .' ayp .1 4 . ab .1e - i. ' .d, .- =. . . , s . . a . . . .

W .4 .h .- a. s -pa. . . * ^ " -w 7. .a. ". .' v .

'(')/a) ( ~. o *..". e

. /

a. r. e.n . 4 . a .' .' a. c; n- e

..".a-. FC g 4 .. =.~y a w .w.- s k. a "< a- a ~.^ .' a. 4.. --." e " a. .. 4 .# .4 w a .ds..

-" .m.' d e .e .' ~:n.

changes) and Contentions 1(7)(b) and (c) (alleged improper a e.o - -v a ., o .c a n. s .a ,-. .. ..ha..c,a.a-), M..

. .t a. v a. . .' a .v "n .4 .' .'--das . ..""e ..k. a.

procedures for approval of design changes and how they were

, ,o 4

., m . . e. . . . .s -a y..y-...-] ..y - 3. e u . .s . y.4 .w. -o.u, y o.c. v,

. . . . . . . . . .e

-- . . . s .3 ,

.g.

j'

- . _ - - - ~. - ,

1 1

1

• J s

I 1

l 1

1

']

l l

l l

1(7)(d). and (e) (alleged falsifica en of pour cards; alleged 3 1

harassment and intimidation of QC inspectors) and Contention  !

1 1(7)(a) (to the extent it alleges that QC inspectors were thwarted in their communications with design engineers),

i

~

testimony will be presented by a panel of witnesses including Mr. G. Thomas Warnick, B&R's former ST? Quality Control Manager, Mr. Charles M. Singleton, and Mr. Logan D. Wilsen. i Messrs. Warnick and Singleton will-describe the QA program at STP as administered at the working level and will explain alleged incidents of harassment and intimidation. Mr. Wilsen will describe HL&P's actions in connection with alleged incidents of harassment and intimidation and falsification of pour cards. Winh respect to Contention 2 (alleged falsifica-tion of STP construction records), Mr. McKay and Mr. Logan will describe the incident of falsification by s PTL employee of concrete material test records as reported to the NRC by i.

HL&P and the resulting investigations as identified in NRC !r Inspection Reports 77-03 and 77-05. _

In addition, Mr. Richard Buckalev, a B&R Systems Technican and former cadwelding foreman, and Mr. -ohn 3. Duke, a S&R Vendor Surveillance inspector and former QC Inspector, will address the allegation  ;

regarding falsification of as-built cadweld location records for the Reactor Containmen: Building Unit i basema: as investigated bv the NRC in Inspection Reper: ~73-C9, and will 1 explain why the falsification allegation is w :hout basis.

r i

f n

'I The last panel of witnesses.to be-presented by HL&P will include Mr. Cprea, Mr. Gcidberg, Mr. Robert I.

Moles, HL&P's STP Plant Superintendent, and Mr. Fracar, who will testify concerning HL&P's planned organization for operation of the STP. Mr. Cprea will describe HL&P's poli-cies for the conduct of operation and will present an overview i

of the organization and plans for operation, including a '

discussion of how the review of construction problems has affected such organization and plans. Mr. Moles will describe t

i HL&P's planned organi:ational structure and staffing, qualifi-cations and training of personnel, and development of procedures for operation. Mr. Goldberg will discuss the planned organi-

=ational structure for technical support for ST? operations, the transition from :enstruction to operation, mechanisms for independent safety review, training programs for support

.eerscnnel and .crocedures for approval of plant modifications. ,

Mr. Fra:ar will describe the planned QA organizational structure, the qbalificaticas and training of personnel, the development of QA procedures, the transition from construction to operation, and current QA activities relating to operation.

-..,4 -

en m VMe e A

9 i

~

r r ~r"-m-'-

5+--** =e<*'+- * *'ar +-e-' ~*-m** * ' ' ' * * ' ' ~ ' = ' - * ' * * ' " ' ' - - ' ' " * " ' ' " "

~' I '

• EXHIBIT 2 M

% t 9,

fy' L.

gEC .% - -

-~"

0 , 3 -

Et 3 ,?.) '

g  %

$2 UNITED STATES OF AME3ICA ,A ge NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N *

%g4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _

Og0, Charles 3echhoefer, Chairman >

, Dr. James C. Lamb " l!@

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke In the Macter of )

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL ,

?OWER COMPANY, ET AL. STN 50-499 OL '

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) )

S_ECOND PREREARING CONIERENCE ORDER (December 2, 1980)

On November 19, 1980, the Licensing Board held a prehearing conference in this operating license proceeding.

The conference was announced by our Order of October 30, 1980.1/

At the conference, the following matters were discussed:

A. In our Memorandum and Order of September 24, 1980, we ,

invited the parties to attempt to agree on issues totbe heard, in this proceeding as a result of the Commission's Memorandum and Order of September 22, 1980, CLI-80-32, 12 NRC ,

The Applicants forwarded their initial proposals to us by II That Order was uchlished in the Federal Register of November 17, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 73376)',

DV PE O P g;- o ( a 3 e c/"7 7 l

? D (2 . wm re r w a "

lecters dated October 6 and 22,:1980. The NRC Staff submitted its first proposal by letter dated October 15, 1980. Neither.

of the intervenors (CCA1TP and CEU) responded to our invitation to submit proposals for'such issues. Because of differences berween the Applicants' and Staff's initial proposals, and in response to their suggestions, we. convened the November 19, 1980 orehearing conference to determine, inter alia, the issues to be heard concerning QA/QC =atters, the subject of the Commission's Me=orandnm and Order.-

Prior to the conference, by letter dated November 14, -

1980, the Staff transmitted to the Board and parties a revised statement of issues upon which it and the Applicants had agreed.

At the prehaaring c'onference, we were informed that both intervenors had essentially agreed with the Staff's October 15 statement of issues (Tr. 209, 236, 250). For that reason, they had not submitted proposals of their own (Tr. 236). But they .

strongly disagreed with the revised statement (Tr. 209-12, 234-36). Additionally, they complained that they had not been brought into the recent negotiatiens between the Applicants and Staff which led to that revised statement (Tr. 206-10, 263-64).

(They stressed that they had been consulted concerning the Staff's earlier statement, with which they agreed (Tr. 205, 236)') .

Particularly in light of our September 24, 1980 2nvitation to.all parties to attempt to agree upon issues, the 3 card regards the

Applicants' and Staff's negotiations which e.xcluded the intervenors as discourteous at best and as inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of our earlier directive. When we invite parties to attempt to reach agreement on particular natters, we expect that negotiations will normally include all parties who may wish to_ participate. Henceforth, we will look with disfavor upon any failure by the Applicants or ' Staff to include the Latervenors La negotiations of this sort.

In any event, the primary difference between the views of the Latervenors, on the one hand, and the Applicants and Staff, on the other, was the emphasis they chose to accord to the past practices of the Applicants which had given rise to the Staff's April 30, 1980 Order to Show Cause. In CLI-80-32, the Commission had observed that those practices, in themselves, night be found serious enough to warrant denial of operating 11censos (slip op., p. 18). The intervenors sought to raise as ma issue that very question--i.e., whether those past practices, standing alone, would warrant denial of such operating licenses. They read paragraph 1.A of the St:ff's letter of October 15,1980 (with which they agreed) as raising that issue (Tr. 250). In contrast, although agreeing that past practices should be looked at, the Applicants and Staff claimed that issues which raise the past practices should-also encom-pass the sufficiency of corrective actions adopted or proposed by the Applicants. 3 deed, the Applicants enpressed the view

t that the past practices could not meaningfully be considered apart from the corrective-actions (Tr. 233-34, 239-40, 267-69).

However, CEU, in particular, expressed the view that the corrective actions should not even be ex:> mined during the expedited hearing on QA/QC issues but should.only be considered in the event of a finding that the past practices in themselves would not warrant the denial of operating licenses (Tr. 257, 303).

As indicated at the prehearing conference, we agree with the intervenors that the Commission Memorandum and Order does contemplate the adjudication of whether past practices in themselves would be sufficient to deny the application for operating licenses. We therefore accepted an issue raising only that question. As we also indicated, however, the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations contemplate that operating license decerninations =ust be based on predictive findings whether an applicant will comply with applicable requirements.

Further, where past deficiencies are demonstrated, an applicant is permitted to attempt to demonstrate whether (and how) those +

deficiencies have been or will be remedied. See, e,.3.,

10 CFR 5 5 50.40, 50.54(e) and (f), 50.55(e); 10 CFR S 2.201(a) . /

2'/ We note that, in oroviding us guidance with respect to the possible deniil of operating licenses by virtue of cast i managerial practices, the various Cocnnissioners in their separate statements in CLI-80-32 cited two decisions which stress the totaliev of a licensee's operation and the -

i=portance of matters which nay sitigate the significance of i adverse findings concerning prior practices. Cosmooolitan ~

3roadcasting Co. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1978);

~

J lcjfET Resea ch Coro. , ALAB-594, 11 NRC 341 (1980).  !

i

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

-l

- S- -

l 1

For these reasons, and because the Cctsission clearly indicated i in CLI-80-32 that the expedited QA/QC hearing vas .part and -

parcel of the operating license proceeding, we also accepted as a separate issue'the extent to which the Applicants may have  ;

correctad the effects of past practices (or-nay have takan r". cps to assure that past practices do not recur) . )

i We have set forth in the attachment to this Order the- l issues we have ac.cented for consideration at the expedited i

QA/QC hearing,

3. After discussion with the parties, we adooted the follcuing schedule for further discovery on, and hearing of, the QA/QC issues:

1. January 16, 1981 Last date for the App 1tcants or NRC Staff to file discovery requests or notions to ccapel (except (a) depositions of witnesses or (b) discovery based on new information in ,

Staff's SER).

2. February 2, 1981 Last date for intervenors to file discovery requests or cotions to cenpel (encape (a) depositions cf V

-, ,- ,- ..-.,,c_.. -,,,-,,,,..v,-,., _.-r,-4 y,,. . , -,y-,7-.w,sm.-,--- , , _ , - , - . , . . - , . - - .w ,-_c., -c., .. .. , ,:~ , .

s . . .

witnesses or (b) discovery based on new information in SER). Note: with respect to discovery requests filed by intervenors subsequent to January 16, 1981, inter-venors must telephone the Applicants and Staff on or before the filing date and make available discovery requests for messenger pickup.

3. February 16, 1980 Issuance of SER on QA/QC (approximate) issues.

4. February 23, 1981 Filing of responses to or 30 days after discovery (except on SER) .

service of discovery request (whichever is earlier)

5. 15 days after Last date for filing dis-l service of SER covery requests based on l new information in SER.

l

6. 30 days after Filing of responses to service of request discovery based en new infor-mation in SER.

7. March 2, 1981 Identification of witnesses and substance of testimony by all parties.

8. Week of March 16, Prehearing Conference, 1981

9. April 1, 1981 Last date for depositions of witnesses.

10. April 15, 1981 Filing of written testimony.

11. Week of May 4, 1981 Ccznencement of evidenciary hearing.

In view of the Commission's emphasis upon an expedited hearing, we expect the parties to adhere to the foregoing schedule as closely as possible. Modifications will not be granted absent a strong showing of geca cause.

C. We discussed with the parties possible locations for holding future prehearing conferences and the evidentiary

-w ,

hearings. We announced that, in accord with usual NRC prac-tice, the hearings would begin in Bay City, Texas, near the site. Limited appearance statements will be takan at that time. (We add that we will likely also desire at that time a site tour to view deficiencies and remedial action taken.)

Because the hearing facilities in 3ay City are apparently not ideal, we discussed holding conferences and other hearing sessions in Houston, San Antonio, or Austin. The Applicants preferred the first two cities (although not objecting to Austin for prehearing conferences); the intervenors preferred the latter two cities. We defer ed any decision on this

~

matter, but indicated that portions of the hearing might be held at differing locations.

D. We informed the intervenors of the Commission's new program of procedural assistance for intervencrs. Both CCANP and CEU requested such assistance (Tr. 342). We ,d_etermined that both parties would be afforded xerox copies of transcripts reproduced by NRC, and that they would share a single overnight copy of the transcript during the evidentiary hearings.

-+-m u,,p-4 - e q

.- ., , , j

• l

'I

.-9_

l IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICIISDIG FCARD- ,

t I?- 5;, . .f. . .

1

. A.. , x,<!. w e/l, - /..

Charles Bacnnoefer, Cp. air =an ,

L Dated at 3ethesda, Marf l and this 2nd day of Dececher 1980.

b b

+

6 4

1 9

- ,- n. -- --,-,,r ew ,+ , ~ , - .. r , - - . - , - - . ~ , , < ,

--,,-c--< , e

.. .+ ,- -

y

':eep. .y/ ,

Attachment .Oggf

- ,,,. J .

K

• 9f y , W QA/QC ISSUES ~ Ac; ]"r 4 g 1

.In. addition to Contentions 1 and 2 (attachment to a Q_@,j'i ,

Memorandum and Order dated August.3, 1979);'the'following QA/QC issues are admitted. into controversy as a result of ~ the Commission's Memorandum'and Order dated September 22, ~380 ,

(CLI-80-32): >

i Issue A. If viewed without regard to the remedial steps taken by HL&P, would the-record of'HL&P's compliance with' NRC requirements, including: ]

(1) the statements.in the PSAR referred'to in  !

Section V.A.(10) of the Order to Show Cause;  ;

(2) the instances of~non-compliance. set forth in the Notice of Violation and the Order to Show [

Cause; (3) ' the extent to which EL&P abdicated responsi-

~

bility for constraction of the South Texas-  ;

Project (STP) to Brown & Root; and  ;

(4) the extent to which HL&P failed to keep itself knowledgeable about necessary const:: mtion activities at STP, be sufficient to determine that HL&P does not have the necessary managerial competence or character to be granted. licenses to operate the STP?

r

.--.-.,n-,~-,.+,- -.+,, .--,-. ...L-.,..,.n n ,a.m.~ , . , . . , , . , .,.,a- = . , ~ , . , . , , . - - .,,,.sw,. ~, . & n,. -v..~.., -.. .,--,,r.e. , , - . -

Issue _3. Ms E&? taken sufficient remedial steps to provide assurance that it now has the =anagerial competence and character to operate STP cafely?

Issue C. In light of (1) E&?'s planned organization for ,

operation of the ST?; and (2) the alleged deficien-cies in E&P's nnnngement of coustruction of the ST? (including its past totions or lack of action, revised programs for conitoring the activities of its architect-engineer-constructor and those matters set out in Issues A and 3), is there reasonable assurance that HL&? will have the competence and commitment to safely operate the STP?

Issue D. In light of HL&?'s prior performance in. the constrac-tion of the STP as reflected, in part, in the Notice of Violation and order to Show Cause dated April 30, 1980, and ES?'s responses thereto (filings of May 23, 1980 and July 28, 1980), and actions taken pursuant thereto, do the current E5? and 3rown &

Root (3&R) construction QA/QC organizations and practices meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3; and is there reasonable assurance that they will be i=plemented so that construction of ST? can be cocplaced in confor=ance with the constrac-tion permits and other applicable requirements?

e'

4 0, e Issue E. Is there reasonable assurance that the structures now in place at the STP (refered to in Sections V.A.(2) and (3) of the Order to Show Cause) are in conformity with the construc tion permits and the r provisions of Commission regulations? If not, has EL&P taken steps to assure that such structures are repaired or replaced as necessary to meet such requirements?

Issue F. Will RL&P's Quality Assurance Program for Operation of the STP meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B7

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