ML20151U673

Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20151U673
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/03/1986
From:	Berwick B TEXAS, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-020, CON-#186-20 OL, NUDOCS 8602110079
Download: ML20151U673 (4)

Text

--

s J 3f~

lt . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYggDg4CENSINGBOARD- g wpm Inithe. Matter of

• E ' HOUSTON LIGHTING AND . pg @oM[N- Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.- -

50-499 OL (South Texas-Project,

• Units.1 and 2) (H H .-

00Cru g~

l ,

February 3, 1986 STATE OF TEXAS RESPONSE TO.

JANUARY 17, 1996 CCANP MOTION TO REOPEN' PHASE II RECORD, ETC.

The . State of Texas supports CCANP's recent motion to reopen the. '

W '

Phase II record. The documents attached to the motion appear to contain potentially. significant evidence regarding the Quad rex Report. The State believes-that the record- should be fully developed on the'important issues: surrounding the report. . . , . .

.CCANP's motion demonstrates that it has met the criteria -for reopening the record. The State believes, that tW%~ reopened proceeding.should include additional discovery and hearings.

When the Board' announced the " broad issues" (Contentions 9 and 10)- of- the Phase II hearings, it permitted very limited additional discovery. (MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, February 26, 1985, LBP-85-6, __

_ NRC: .) The Board directed the Applicants to furnish (at p. 25):

.... copies. of internal documents or other records (in any

. form,: including drafts), or correspondence or other-communications with outside persons (including but not limited 1

8602110079 860203

• PDR ADOCK 05000496 G PDR u _ _ _ _ _

D to B&R), concerning. (1) the reportability or potential reportability to NRC (including this Board) of the Quadrex Report. or any particular findings therein; and (2) the potential existence in the Quadrex Report or drafts thereof of information reflecting significant QA violations. Those records should cover the time from from 93rch 1, 1981 thorugh September 28, 1981.

These. severe limits precluded from discovery potentially significant evidence--a July, 1984, deposition of a senior Brown and ~ Root official, and his December 1980- or January 1981 memorandum. One wonders what more evidence could be brought to light, especially since the conclusion of the HL&P v. Brown &

~

Root litigation. Clearly, broader discovery is now in order.

While the State has frequently taken a somewhat passive role in these proceedings, it is mindful of their history. Quadrex was hired shortly after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision denying a hearing on an enforcement order. (Houston Lighting and Power, (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CLI 32, 12 NRC 281 (1980)) In that decision, th'e-commission took the opportunity to discuss the operating licence proceeding:

The history of the South Texas Project ... is relevant to the issue of the basic competence and character of Houston.

Central to that issue are two questions: whether the facts demonstrate that the. licensee has abdicated too much responsibility for co.nstruction to its contractor, Brown &

Root, Inc., and whether the f acts deraenstrate an unacceptable failure on the part of Houston to keep itself knowledgable about necessary construction activities. Either abdication of responsibility or abdication of knowledge, whether at the construction 7or operating phase, could form an independent basis for revoking a license or denying a license application on grounds of lack of competence (i.e., technical) or

. character qualification on the part of the licensee or license

'pplicant.

a ...

2

_ - . . . _ _ ,. . . , - , - . , . . , , ,s. <--~,-n

L o

~

We believe that the- above issues relating to technical competence and to character permeate the pleadings filed by Citizens. They do deserve a full adjudicatory hearing, as they will no doubt get in the operating license proceeding, and they do. deserve expeditious treatment because they could prove disqualifying.

[ footnote 4] Equally, and perhaps of more concern, the Commission cannot ignore false statements in documents submitted to it. Congress has specifically provided provided that licenses may be revoked for " material false statements",

see section 186a of the Atomic Energy Act, and we have no doubt that initial license applications or renewal applications may also be denied on this ground, certainly if the falsehoods were intentional, FCC v. WOKO, 329 U.S. 223 (1946), and perhaps even if they were made only with disregard for the truth. [ citations omitted]

In its order for the Phase II hearings, the Board reiterated its recognition that its rulings on HL&P's character and competence are to be subjected to the results of its Phase II examination of Quadrex issues. (LBP-85-6, supra, p.4)

The need for a full adjudication of HL&P's character- and competence will not be met unless the record is reopened with additional discovery and hearings. For that. reason, the State of Texas supports the CCANP motion.

Respectfully submitted, svL E ))O m ik BRIAN E. BERWICK Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-1101 3

7- . -

?- '

/y435T%n -

/eJ 'Q-E REB 10 E

• ggr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'O ~_,,._ p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

= 1n en ~

f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO'ARD /

N' In the Matter of *

~m . _ .

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND

• Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

• 50-499 OL (South Texas Project,

• Units 1 and 2)

• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of STATE OF TEXAS RESPONSE TO J?."UARY 17, 1986 CCANP MOTION TO REOPEN PHASE II RECORD, ETC.

were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 3rd day of February, 1986:

Charles Bechhofer, Esq. Lanny A. Sinkin Chairman CCANP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Christic Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20002 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.

Administrative Judge Office of the Exec. Leg.Dir.

313 Woodhaven Road U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Administrative Judge 1615 L. Street, NW,,j 1000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Washing ton , D.C. 20036 Wash ing ton , D.C. 20555 Melbert Schwartz, Esq.

Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Executive Director, C.U.E. Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Atomic Safety and Lic. Bd.

U .' S . Nuclear Reg. Comm.

Diane Curran, Esq. Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Harmon, Weiss, & Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Atomic Safety & Lic. Appeal Bd.

Washington, D.C. 20009 U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm Washington, D.C. 20555 Pat Coy 5106 Casa Oro Docketing and Service Section San Antonio, Texas 78233 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm.

Ray Goldstein Washington, D.C. 20555 901 Vaughn Bldg. _

807 Brazos Austin, Texas 787P1 bAC 8Aca%b-BRIAN E. BERWICK 4