ML20133H046
| ML20133H046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1985 |
| From: | Gutterman A HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-779 OL, NUDOCS 8510160244 | |
| Download: ML20133H046 (22) | |
Text
N~
L, a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T5 0CT 15 A!0 :24 QFfy i Cr n L; c u..
In the Matter of ) "" EijNUaSL6LTL uRANCH
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL ET AL. ) 50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CCANP MOTION DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 In its September 30, 1985, motion 1/ (" Motion" herein-after) CCANP asks the Board to reopen the record in Phase II to admit two documents: (1) the S. Levy, Inc., Report on Brown &
Root Engineering on the South Texas Project dated October 1, 1984 (SLI Report) and (2) a chronology of events related to the South Texas Project (STP) prepared by Mr. Don D. Jordan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of HL&P (Jordan Chronology). CCANP also seeks discovery and admission of a new contention. In Applicants' view, the SLI Report (copy enclosed) would not alter the Board's decision, nor is it relevant to the issues in Phase II. Accordingly, it should not be received in the record nor be permitted as the subject of a new contention. The Jordan l
Chronology is cumulative of other evidence in the record;
-1/ CCANP Motion For Board Ordered Production of Documents, To Reopen the Record, For New Contention, For Discovery, And For Extensions of Time, dated September 30, 1985.
8510160244 851010 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G pop (, %
j a
however, for reasons explained herein, Applicants would not object to its admission into evidence. The other relief sought by CCANP is entirely inappropriate and should be denied.
Argument I. The SLI Report A. Background Applicants advised the Board on October 9, 1984, that they had received a report on Brown & Root (B&R) engineering for STP from their technical consultant, S. Levy, Inc. (SLI),
prepared in connection with their lawsuit in Matagorda County, Texas, against B&R; that the SLI Report dealt with certain issues covered by the Quadrex Report; and that the SLI Report was subject to a protective order prohibiting its public disclosure.
Applicants stated that they believed the SLI Report was not material to any issue before the Board but that, if the Board felt otherwise, they would seek authorization from the Texas court for release of the SLI Report to the Board and parties.
l l Letter to the members of the Licensing Board from J. R. Newman i
dated October 9, 1984. The protective order was dissolved by the Texas court on May 30, 1985, after an agreement was reached on l settlement of the case, and the filings with the court were made l
l available to the public at the courthouse in Bay City. See letter to Robert D. Martin from J.H. Goldberg dated June 5, 1985; l
l letter to members of the Licensing Board from Lanny A. Sinkin dated June 26, 1985.
The SLI Report is an expert witness report evaluating B&R engineering performance under the standards set out in the STP Contract (e.g., "8.1. Contractor guarantees that its design and engineering work will be performed in compliance with the highest professional standards"). The Report is based on SLI's analysis of information obtained chrough lawsuit discovery from 1982-84, including deposition transcripts, many thousands of internal B&R memoranda and documents, the results of Bechtel's review of the B&R design and various other sources of information which were not available to HL&P until af ter B&R's termination.
The SLI Report states: "SLI has not independently identified any deficiency reportable under NRC regulations, and has not identified any deficiency, reportable or not reportable, not currently being addressed by Bechtel." SLI Report at i. Neither the reportability of the May 1981 Quadrex Report nor HL&P's deliberations on the Quadrex Report are mentioned or addressed anywhere in the SLI Report. Rather, the SLI Report deals with B&R's compliance with its contractual obligations, from the perspective of 1984.
The tone of the SLI Report reflects both its purpose as a document prepared for litigation as well as the standard against which it measures B&R's performanc'e. As noted by CCANP, SLI concluded that B&R engineering work "was substandard (i.e.
below normal professionally accepted standards) and had resulted in " minimal accomplishment for the time and money spent." CCANP Motion at 5. The SLI Report thus confirmed the testimony of Mr.
i
Goldberg in Phase I that "B&R lacked the necessary depth to perform the engineering and construction management tasks for STP in an orderly, timely and cost effective manner. . . ."
Goldberg, et al., ff. Tr. 10403, at 5. See also transcript references at Goldberg, ff. Tr. 11491, at 60-61. It also
_ supports many of the allegations in Plaintiffs' Specification of Claims and Issues (e.g. "B&R engineers and engineering managers were unable to solve technical problems necessary for licensing and completion of the design *** By July 1981, B&R . . . had completed less than one-half the engineering necessary to complete STP. *** B&R engineering was unable to produce usable final design to support needed construction" etc.), which was sent to the Board this past April. See letter to the members of the Licensing Board from Maurice Axelrad dated April 22, 1985.
It is also consistent with the testimony of HL&P witnesses in Phase II. Cf. Oprea, ff. Tr. 14095, at 10-11; Tr. 11569-71, 11590, 12439-40 (Goldberg); Tr. 12766-67, 12855-56 (Sumpter); Tr.
14736-37 (Robertson).
CCANP moves to reopen the record of the Phase II proceedings to admit the SLI Report, apparently on two theories.
First, CCANP argues that the SLI Report confirms certain generic and specific findings in the Quadrex Report, citing about fifty
" excerpts" from the SLI Report (often out-of-context or unreliably paraphrased) to the effect that B&R's engineering resources.were inadequate to the task; that its management failed to assure proper coordination of the engineering work, ultimately
d resulting in the inability of engineering to support construc-tion, that B&R's engineering organization was not timely in its recognition of regulatory changes; and that, in all these respects and more, the SLI Report "gives an inside look at how much trouble B&R was having . . . ." CCANP Motion at 12.
Second, CCANP attached to its Motion several pages labeled
" Appendix 1," which are cross-referenced to various " excerpts" from the SLI Report. Apparently, CCANP also contends that these
" excerpts" support its position that a widespread breakdown in the OA program was documented in the Quadrex Report. As shcwn below, neither theory has a factual basis and CCANP has failed to demonstrate that the SLI Report would affect the Board's decision, or even that it is relevant to the Phase II issues.
B. The SLI Report Would Not Alter the Board's Decision in Phase II.
Although CCANP contends that the SLI Report is material to the issues in Phase II, it bears a heavier burden in seeking i
to reopen the record at this point. It must also demonstrate that the SLI Report has at least the potential for altering a l result which might otherwise be reached. 2/ CCANP does not 2/ As CCANP recognizes, it must also show that its motion is timely. CCANP learned of the SLI Report in mid-October, 1984. It was made available to the public on May 30, 1985.
See Letter to Robert D. Martin, from J.H. Goldberg dated June 5, 1985, a copy of which was sent to CCANP. See also i letter to members of the Licensing Board from Lenny A.
I Sinkin dated June 26, 1985. CCANP did not seek t he document l from Applicants and apparently did not attempt to get it from the courthouse. Instead it attempts to justify its delay as the result of a slow response from certain Austin (footnote continued) l l
attempt to show that the SLI Report meets this standard, but instead asserts that the standard does not apply. CCANP Motion at 17-18. Tais position is clearly incorrect, and contrary to this Board's ruling on this identical point in rejecting CCANP's August 8, 198'2, motion to reopen the Phase I record. Phase I PID, LBP-84-13, 19 NRC 659, 716 n. 43 (1984). There the Licensing Board stated:
Here, with the record closed on the portion cf the proceeding with respect to which information is being proffered, and with proposed findings on the question already submitted, it is appropriate to consider (in the context of the materiality or signi-ficance of the information in question) whether the additional information would alter the result we would reach in its absence. 3/
The Board's holding on this point is supported by substantial authority. E.g. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775, 804 (1979),
vacated in part on other grounds, CLI-80-8, 11 NRC 433 (1980);
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-41, 18 NRC 104, 108 (1983).
l ( footnote continued f rom previous page) officials, who had no apparent obligation to provide the l document. Such an excuse is not acceptable, and CCANP's Motion could be dismissed as not timely with respect to the SLI P.eport. Compare Phase I PID, 19 NRC 659, 717. However, as discussed herein, there are more compelling reasons to dismiss it.
-3/ CCANP did not serve the instant Motion upon Applicants until it received Applicants' Proposed Findings.
CCANP does not assert in its Motion, much less establish, how the Board's findings regarding the reportability of any of the Quadrex findings in controversy are likely to be altered by information in the SLI Report. The Motion states, ipse dixit, that "since the SLI Report is relevant to the reportability of the Quadrex Report as a whole," reopening of the record is warranted. This rhetoric does not close the gap in logic: there is no articulated nexus in the CCANP Motion between the particular facts or conclusions in the SLI Report and the reportability of specific Quadrex findings.
C. The SLI Report Is Not Relevant or Material to the Reportability of the Quadrex Report or its Findings The central issue before the Board in Phase II is "Did HL&P demonstrate competence and good faith in making its May, 1981 decisions on the reportability of the Quadrex Report under 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e)"? Applicants invite the Board's inspection of the SLI Report for the purpose of determining whether it discloses facts which shed new light on the appropriateness of those decisions in May of 1981 or, for that matter, whether the SLI Report even purports to reach any such judgment as of the date of its issuance in October 1984. To this end, copies of the SLI Report are being sent to the Board and parties.
CCANP's pleading fails to identify any facts contained in the SLI Report that are relevant to HL&P's reportability decisions in May, 1981. CCANP's principal argument is that the l
{
l l
9 SLI Report confirms and substantiates the Quadrex findings.
However, the " excerpts" from the SLI Report cited by CCANP do not disclose facts validating Quadrex findings which had been determined in May, 1981 by HL&P to be inaccurate, and as such, not reportable. That is not surprising because, with only minor exceptions not relevant here, 4/ HL&P's decisions on the report-ability of the Quadrex discipline findings at issue in Phase II did not turn on any factual disagreement with the Quadrex Report.
There is, in short, no nexus between the facts disclosed in the SLI F.eport and the considerations which governed HL&P's reporting decisions.
As to the bearing of the SLI findings on the report-ability of the Quadrex Peport as a whole or its broader generic findings, that connection is apparently buried in the string of arguments which comprise Appendix 1 to CCANP's Motion. We are at l
a loss to comprehend its import. Presumably, the Appendix is based on the perception that the SLI Report supports what Quadrex did not itself find: namely, a widespread breakdown in design OA. CCANP points to nothing in the SLI Report which identifies or even suggests either a significant breakdown in design OA or individual breakdowns of such a magnitude as to be tantamount to 4/ On May r, 1981 B&R advised HL&P that it had analyzed the essentia;. cooling pond for simultaneous shutdown of both units anv. that Quadrex finding 4.6.2.1(n) was in error. See Applicant s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 11 VIII.31, VIII.33. The SLI Report does not address this issue.
a significant OA breakdown. There is, indeed, little mention of OA in the SLI Report and certainly no conclusion that there was a significant breakdown in the B&R design OA program. 5/
CCANP also argues that the SLI Report bears on the
" ultimate reportability" question. Motion at 19-20. The gist of this argument, which has been considered by this Board (e.g. Tr.
13384-409), is that "af ter-the-f act" evidence may be probative on the question of whether HL&P competently executed its reporting responsibilities in May, 1981. In principle, that is certainly true. However, the relevance and materiality of any subsequent review turns on whether its purpose, 6/ the body of data it considers, the relevant period of time, er.c., reasonably approximate the circumstances of HL&P's initial reportability review. That is clearly not the case with the SLI Report. It does not purport to review the reportability of the Quadrex 5/ The one mention of OA, per se, in CCANP's " excerpts" appears in the fifth paragraph on page 10. There CCANP misrepresents paragraph 3.4.2.7 of the SLI Report at 3-38.
The SLI Report mentions two separate matters in that paragraph: (1) the problem regarding verification of cable tray support designs which was reported as a section 50.55(e) deficiency in December, 1980 (See letter to K.
Seyfrit from G.W. Oprea dated January 77 1981); and (2) a disagreement regarding OA involvement in construction of the Main Cooling Reservoir, which is not safety-related and is not subject to Appendix B. Neither concern has any bearing on the Quadrex findings.
6/ CCANP contends that "the SLI report stands as refutation to the Applicant's position that the Quadrex Report was merely of scheduling and productivity concern . . . " Motion at 20.
Clearly the SLI Report does not attempt to characterize the import of the Quadrex Report. Moreover, the excerpts drawn l from the SLI Report by CCANP itself, clearly highlight the l focus of the Report on cost and schedule. Cf. Motion at 5.
I r
findings. 7/ It reviews a much broader and different base of information than that considered by Quadrex or by HL&P in May, 1981 (e.l.,
j depositions, Bechtel work packages, internal B&R documents obtained through discovery). Moreover, much of the information in the SLI Report pertains to matters identified and resolved before May, 1981 (e.g., the cable tray design verification issue addressed at SLI Report section 2.22; the beam to column connection issue addressed at SLI Report section 2.18),
while other information was developed af ter May, 1981 (e.g., the unit auxiliary transformer issue addressed at SLI Report section 2.30; the main cooling reservoir embankment penetration issue addressed at SLI Report pp. 3-48, 49). In short, although the SLI Report corrobotates a number of findings reached by Quadrex on the adequacy of B&R'c performance, it is neither relevant nor material to the question of wi. ether, in the setting and circumstances of HL&P's May, 1981, review, the Quadrex findings were reportable.
To the extent CCANP lists a few of the broad conclu-sions of the SLI Report to lend support to its argument on the reportability of selected Quadrex findings (especially the generic findings), the connection is even more spurious. SLI's conclusions on such matters as integration of design activities 7/ To the extent that any judgment on the " ultimate reportabil-ity" question can be inputed to the SLI Report, it would, in fact, support HL&P's conclusion. SLI noted explicitly that its review did not result in the identification of any deficiency reportable under NRC regulations. SLI Report at i.
$ -l's -
l i .
I and periodic updating of design information, are made in light of contractual standards quite.different from those which govern reportability under 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e). 8/ Thus, from the perspective of the SLI Report, failures to employ " good i engineering practice" are significant because they are evidence of breaches by the contractor of its contractually promised level of performance. However, as noted in the testimony in Phase II, i
departures from " good engineering practice" do not necessarily i
violate applicable regulatory standards or trigger their associated reporting requiremento. See Applicants Proposed i Findings of Fact and Conclusions cf Law at Section VIII.C. Thus, i references to selected conclusions lifted from the SLI Report, in i
support of an argument on the reportability of the Quadrex findings, or the Quadrex Report as a whole, are totally
- inapposite.
l t
D. There is No Basis for CCANP's Proposed New Contention In view of the foregoing, the "McGuire" aspect of CCANP's Motion (the Motion to add a new contention) is entirely without basis. Applicants were forthright in promptly informing
{ the Board on receipt of the SLI Report, of the fact that it t-
! covered some of the same subject matter as the Quadrex Report and of their perception (fully supported by this pleading) that the SLI Report was not material to any matter before the Board for
-8/ The B&R contract provides that, in addition to compliance with regulatory requirements, B&R's engineering shall be l performed in accordance with "the highest professional j standards". STP Contract 1 8.1.
t I , , , , ___ _ _ _ __ _ . . _
i.
i l
adjudication. Moreover, the CCANP Motion fails to address any of i the legal standards governing approval of such a motion. 9/
Accordingly, it should be summarily denied. Furthermore, if CCANP's thesis (i.e., that documents which corroborate Quadrex findings are material to the reportability of the findings) were accepted, the volume of documents potentially material to the Phase II issues would be enormous. For example, pretrial j discovery in the litigation with B&R included the exchange of I~
millions of documents, many of which are relevant to the adequacy l of B&R's' performance as architect-engineer. Were it to be the rule that every document corroborating or tending to corroborate l
findings of the Quadrex Report on the adequacy of B&R's l performance was germane to this proceeding, that would trigger a review of mammoth proportions to no useful purpose. The adequacy
^
of B&R's performance is not at issue in this proceeding. See Memorandum and Order dated July 10, 1984, at 5. Consideration of i
' -9/ 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1) specifies five factors to be considered in considering a late filed contention. The proponent of a late filed contention must make a reasonable showing that a balance of the five factors favors the admis-sion of the late contention. Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Unita 1 and 2), CLI-83-14, 17 NRC 1041, 1046 (1983). A balancing of these factors weighs against admission of the contention. CCANP has not shown " good
! cause" for its four month delay in filing. It lacks the j ability to contribute to a sound record on interpretation of a complex technical report such as the SLI Report. And, CCANP's failure to raise this issue prior to the commencement of the Phase II hearing (so as to provide for its orderly consideration, if deemed appropriate by the
- Board) will result in unnecessary delay. Moreover, as the l Board recognized in LBP-82-91 (16 NRC 1364, 1366-67), a
- contention must have an adequate basis, none is shown in the l CCANP pleading.
l l
._ , . _ _ _ . ~ , _ _ _ . _ _ _
collateral studies, documents, or other materials like the SLI 4
Report addressed to that matter are irrelevant and would open the door to protracted proceedings having no bearing on the compe-tence and good faith of HL&P's 1981 decisions on the report-ability of the Quadrex Report.
1 E. Conclusion CCANP's Motion proceeds from the erroneous premise that, if the SLI Report provides support for the Quadrex findings, it is necessarily relevant to this proceeding. The issue, however, is not whether the Quadrex findings were valid, t
but whether HL&P's reportability decisions were made competently and in good faith. With respect to the vast preponderance of the Quadrex findings at issue, the-record amassed during Phase II does not dispute the validity of the findings but instead shows i why the findings did not meet the reportability criteria of 10 i
! C.F.R. S 50.55(e). The SLI Report is so dissimilar in purpose, l scope, time frame and other relevant circumstances, that it bears I
little or no relationship to the bases underlying HL&P's report-ability decisions in May of 1981. There is not a single finding in the SLI Report which states, or even implies, that the Quadrex Report identified a reportable deficiency in the B&R design or 1
design process that was not properly reported under 10 C.F.R.
- S 50.55(e). In fact, as noted above, the SLI Report states exactly the opposite; namely, that SLI has not identified any reportable deficiency not previously reported under NRC l
i regulations.
l
II. The Jordan Chronology The second document CCANP seeks to have admitted into the record is a chronology of events prepared by Mr. Don D.
Jordan. CCANP is correct in stating that the Jordan Chronology (or at least portions of it) should have been provided to the Board and the parties pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order dated June 18, 1985. In assembling the documents to be provided pursuant to that Order, Applicants' licensing counsel reviewed the Chronology and, relying on the mistaken belief that it was a retrospective review of events prepared at one sitting sometime near the end of 1981, determined that it was not subject to the Board's Production Order. Upon receipt of CCANP's Motion, Applicants' licensing counsel inquired further and determined that our understanding in July was incorrect, and that the entries in the Chronology were written on or shortly after the dates indicated in the Chronology.
Counsel apologizes for any inconvenience their mis-understanding may have caused. This inadvertent error, however, should not obscure the fact that the Chronology contains no relevant information not already in the Phase II record, and indeed, to the extent it is relevant, entirely supports the Applicants' position in these proceedings.
In its Motion, CCANP designates with arrows nineteen specific entries in the Jordan Chronology that CCANP contends are responsive to the Board's Production Order, but fails to explain their significance to the Board's Phase II decision. An l
l l
examination of each of these entries shows that the facts described therein are already amply set forth in the Phase II record, or are simply irrelevant to the issues before the Board.
For example, the 7/2/81 entry states: "HL&P Board very concerned with slip in cost and schedule. Unanimous support for immediation [ sic] review of possible change in engineering firms." The next entry (also 7/2/81) states that Mr. Jordan instructed Mr. Oprea and Mr. Goldberg to check with other A/Es to determine whether a change should be made. These entries are entirely consistent with the record in Phase II hearings, where Mr. Jordan and other HL&P management witnesses testified that on June 29, 1981, HL&P officials decided to explore possible alternatives to B&R, and that from that point on, HL&P undertook to examine the feasibility of that change. 10/ See Jordan, ff.
Tr. 11908, at 9-10; Tr. 12176-77 (Jordan); Goldberg, ff. Tr.
11491, at 56; Tr. 12502, 12504 (Goldberg); Oprea, ff. Tr. 14095, at 10-11; Tr. 14378-79 (Oprea). The entries thus simply confirm testimony and evidence already in the record.
Similarly, the entries related to Mr. Jordan's meetings with Mr. Feehan in July and August of 1981 (see 7/24/81 and 8/6/81 entries) are to the same effect as Mr. Jordan's Phase II
, testimony. Mr. Jordan testified about the July 24 meeting at Tr.
10/ The fact that the 6/30/81 entry reflects a discussion Mr.
Jordan had with Pat King of Westinghouse on 6/30/81 about Westinghouse's ability to take over as A/E is also entirely consistent with Mr. Jordan's testimony that after June 29, 1981, HL&P began to seek out possible alternatives to B&R.
Jordan, ff. Tr. 11908, at 9-10.
11953, 11975-76, 12154-55 and about the August 6, 1981 meeting at Tr. 11976, 12153-54. The Chronology entries fully corroborate and support Mr. Jordan's testimony.
CCANP particularly cites the 8/13/81 entry relating to evaluation of the proposals of possible B&R replacements. This entry states:
Oprea & Goldberg. All responses from Westinghouse, S&W, Ebasco, and Bechtel were received on time. Discussed follow up evaluation. Determined that specific on site discussions with each responsive bid would be necessary. Each meeting would last at least 2 days and would include specific review of resumes and interviewing individuals proposed for the job. HL&P team would be composed of Oprea, Goldberg, & Jack Newman. ,
CCANP claims that "[t]he above quoted entry is additional evidence to that already in the record that Mr. Jordan was less than candid when answering questions about the removal of Brown &
Root, particularly the role of Mr. Newman in that process."
CCANP Motion at 15.
CCANP's claim that this entry is somehow inconsistent with Mr. Jordan's testimony is rather difficult to understand.
Far from undercutting the testimony of Mr. Jordan and other HL&P .
witnesses, this entry is supportive of that testimony. Counsel's participation with Mr. Oprea and Mr. Goldberg in visiting the potential replacement contractors is already a matter of record.
Tr. 11981-82 (Jordan); Tr. 12464-66, 12694 (Goldberg); Tr.
14324-27, 14387-89 (Oprea). In that sense, he was part of a
" team" involved in that activity and the record, including the v - -
draft Report on Contractor Replacement (CCANP Exh. 78), is a
entirely clear on that point. There is nothing in Mr. Jordan's Chronology to suggest, however, that Mr. Newman was part of a
" decision-making team" -- a term used by Mr. Sinkin and not Mr.
Jordan (Tr. 11981) -- with respect to vendor selection. As described in Mr. Jordan's testimony (Tr. 11982), as well as the testimony of Messrs. Oprea and Goldberg (Tr. 12464-66, 12694 0
(Goldberg); Tr. 14324-27, 14287-89 (Oprea)), Mr. Newman provided advice on licensing and commercial considerations. The Jordan Chronology does not imply otherwise. These events have been exhaustively considered and the evidence of record is not contro-verted by the Chronology. Indeed, neither the Chronology entry cited by CCANP nor any other entry refers to the meeting on the morning of September 12, 1981, when the decision to select Bechtel was made by Mr. Jordan (Tr. 11981, 11983, 12163-64 (Jordan)). Thus, the Chronology is entirely consistent with Mr.
I Jordan's testimony regarding the role of counsel in HL&P's deliberations on the selection of a replacement for B&R. In any event, as the Board itself noted in cutting off CCANP's line of questioning on this matter, "the choice between one or the other of the particular constructors" is not an issue in this proceeding. Tr. 11984 Most fundamentally, the relevant portions of the Jordan Chronology underscore the point, supported by essentially all of the evidence already in the record, that the decision to replace B&R was not made until September,1981. The entries describing I
I
the meetings among the owners and their representatives in September where the removal of B&R was discussed, and the ultimate decision to replace Brown & Root was.made, confirm and support exhibits and testimony already in the record. See Tr.
11981-83, 12013-17, 12163-66 (Jordan); Tr. 12375-76, 12680-83 (Goldberg); Tr. 14328-30, 14363-65, 14379-80 (oprea); CCANP Exhs.
78, 80, 83, and 120.
A number of the remaining entries that CCANP contends were responsive to the Board's discovery request relate only to the comparative evaluation of, or negotiations with, Bechtel, Stone & Webster, Ebasco and Westinghouse. For example, the 7/17/81 and 8/26/81 entries refer to Bechtel's willingness to take on work at STP and to the specific personnel Bechtel would be able to commit to the job if it were selected. These entries are thus clearly outside the scope of the Board's Production i
e order, and do not relate to issues in the Phase II hearings.
CCANP has requested that the Board reopen the record to admit the Jordan Chronology, and that discovery on the origin, supporting documentation, and handling of the Chronology be permitted. CCANP Motion to Reopen at 21. HL&P believes that the entries in the Jordan Chronology are either duplicative of material already in the record or are simply irrelevant to the Phase II issues, and therefore do not satisfy the standards applicable to the reopening of a record. 11/ However, since l
11,/ These standards are discussed at pp. 5-7, supra.
CCANP's late discovery of the Chronology was a consequence of licensing counsel's inadvertent error, HL&P does not object to its receipt in evidence.
Discovery on the origin, supporting documentation, and handling of the Chronology is clearly unwarranted. It contains no new material information. To the extent material information is provided, it corroborates Applicants' testimony and is merely cumulative. Discovery about "the document's origin, supporting documentation, and handling" is thus highly unlikely to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence or previously unknown material facts (See 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(1)), but would only waste the time and resources of the Board and the parties.
III. Conclusion The SLI Report is not material to any issue in this l proceeding and if admitted into the record would not alter the l
Board's decision regarding any matter in issue. Accordingly, the record should not be reopened to admit the document. Since HL&P did promptly advise the Board of receipt of the SLI Report and, in any event, because the SLI Report is not material to the Phase II issues, CCANP's proposed contention should be rejected.
The Jordan Chronology merely confirms information of record and would thus be cumulative evidence, at best. However, i since Applicants' licensing counsel erred in not providing the l
Chronology to the Board, Applicants do not object to reopening the record for the limited purpose of admitting it into evidence..
=. _
1, However, there is no issue regarding either the Chronology or the SLI Report that requires discovery. Therefore, CCANP's request for an opportunity to take discovery related to these documents should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
// s/ .
// w%%
Jack R. Newman Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Finis E. Cowan 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Te asa 77002 Dated: October 10, 1985 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING &
1615 L Street, N.W. POWER COMPANY, Project Manager Washington, D.C. 20036 of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, BAKER & BOTTS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 3000 One Shell Plaza acting by and through the City Houston, TX 77002 Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 2
a
4 BSCKETED USN2C o
., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,.. r: -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _
i In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL ET AL. ) 50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response In Opposition To CCANP Motion Dated September 30, 1985" have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 10th day of October, 1985.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.* Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chairman, Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licersing For the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 00555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III* Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator l Administrative Judge Barbara A. Miller l 313 Woodhaven Road Pat Coy l Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Citizens Concerned About Nuclear
! Power l Frederick J. Shon* 5106 Casa Oro l Administrative Judge San Antonio, TX 78233 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Lanny Alan Sinkin*
l Washington, D.C. 20555 3022 Porter St., N.W., #304 l Washington, D.C. 20008 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn*
Executive Director Ray Goldstein, Esq.
! Citizens for Equitable Gray, Allison & Becker Utilities, Inc. 1001 Vaughn Building l Route 1, Box 1684 807 Brazos i
Brazoria, TX 77422 Austin, TX 78701-2553 l
l l
0-Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.*
Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 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 J
l f . y is -
kht::
i
- Distribution of " Report on Brown & Root Engineering l
on the South Texas Project" prepared by S. Levy, Inc.,
j dated October 1, 1984.
i l
t l
l ll l
l t
L i
l L