ML20092J812: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:m _Nb.       4 9'                       . . .
{{#Wiki_filter:m _Nb.
e                             ,,
4 9'
t D00:ETED
e t
      . . , --                                                                                                U3n?.;;
D00:ETED U3n?.;;
[                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA               '84 JiN 25 P3:13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION           , _ . . .
[
a ..: .c n -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                   ifC
'84 JiN 25 P3:13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a..:.c n -
    $^                           ...,
BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ifC
$^
InitbeMatterof S
InitbeMatterof S
J                             .
J S
S
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND S
  ;                  HOUSTON LIGHTING AND                               S       Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.                       S                   50-499 OL (South Texas Project,                             S Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
S             June 20, 1984
S 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, S
  ~x STATE OF TEXAS RESPONSE TO CCANP'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASLB'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED MAY 22, 1984 By memorandum of June 11, 1984, the ASLB invited other par -
Units 1 and 2)
S June 20, 1984
~x STATE OF TEXAS RESPONSE TO CCANP'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASLB'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED MAY 22, 1984 By memorandum of June 11, 1984, the ASLB invited other par -
u.
u.
ties to respond to CCANP 's June 6,1984, Motion for Reconsideration of:the Board's May 22, 1984, Memorandum and Order.                       The CCANP motion
ties to respond to CCANP 's June 6,1984, Motion for Reconsideration of:the Board's May 22, 1984, Memorandum and Order.
                  ..          E asky.the Board to " alter its Memorandum and Order to provide the following:
The CCANP motion E
                                  ''11.         Discovery not limited,as to any aspect of the Quadrex Report.
asky.the Board to " alter its Memorandum and Order to provide the following:
n l-
''11.
[{ 2.
Discovery not limited,as to any aspect of the Quadrex Report.
Such discovery to commence after the filing of the briefs on notification and reportability by all parties or alternatively an order-to the Applicants that such questions are to be answered re-gardless of whether the briefs have been filed or not.
n[{ 2.
                              =-
Such discovery to commence after the filing of the briefs l-on notification and reportability by all parties or alternatively an order-to the Applicants that such questions are to be answered re-gardless of whether the briefs have been filed or not.
m         -
=-
723.           No defining of the issues to be litigated until after the E"
m 723.
No defining of the issues to be litigated until after the E"
discovery and the prehearing conference, i.e. recission of the Board's limitations on the issues set forth in the Memorandum and l
discovery and the prehearing conference, i.e. recission of the Board's limitations on the issues set forth in the Memorandum and l
l                     Order."
l Order."
l-The State of Texas supports the CCANP motion, with the qualification that the additional discovery would be,non-duplicative.
l-The State of Texas supports the CCANP motion, with the qualification that the additional discovery would be,non-duplicative.
8406270135 840620                                                                                 ey l                   PDR ADOCK 05000498 9                               PDR                                                       mQg y
8406270135 840620 l
PDR ADOCK 05000498 ey mQg 9
PDR y


3 In its June 24, 1982, Memorandum, the Board memorialized its decision not to admit 20 contentions (proposed by CCANP) on the Quadrex Report. The parties agreed that the contentions could be con-sidered within the existing issues or within the scope of examination outlined in the Fourth Prehearing Conference Order, dated December 16,   ,
3 In its June 24, 1982, Memorandum, the Board memorialized its decision not to admit 20 contentions (proposed by CCANP) on the Quadrex Report. The parties agreed that the contentions could be con-sidered within the existing issues or within the scope of examination outlined in the Fourth Prehearing Conference Order, dated December 16, 1981-(at p. 5)..
1981-(at p. 5).. The State of Texas discovery conducted last year was based on'a much broader interpretation than the Board now seems to have about the scope of Phase II.     That discovery included, but was not limited to:
The State of Texas discovery conducted last year was based on'a much broader interpretation than the Board now seems to have about the scope of Phase II.
That discovery included, but was not limited to:
F
F
                    -a. the history of design and engineering problems as reflected in the project audits,
-a.
                    .b. the definition of the tasks given to,0uadrex as the tasks evolved over time,
the history of design and engineering problems as reflected in the project audits,
: c. the meaning of Quadrex terminology, the categorization of deficiencies, and the overall assessment,
.b.
: d. -the causes of the deficiencies found by Quadrex,
the definition of the tasks given to,0uadrex as the tasks evolved over time, c.
: e. the Bechtel analysis of the Quadrex deficiencies,
the meaning of Quadrex terminology, the categorization of deficiencies, and the overall assessment, d.
: f. the NRC response to discovery of the Quadrex Report,
-the causes of the deficiencies found by Quadrex, e.
: g. the NRC analysis of'the Quadrex deficiencies, and
the Bechtel analysis of the Quadrex deficiencies, f.
: h. whether deficiencies in the design and engineering process at STP would change either the evaluation of the serious-ness of any defects in HL&P's character and competence or the explanation of the reasons for any such defects.
the NRC response to discovery of the Quadrex Report, g.
The restrictions on Phase II contained in the Board's Ma'y 22 order are severe. They do not seem to flow naturally from the PID.
the NRC analysis of'the Quadrex deficiencies, and h.
whether deficiencies in the design and engineering process at STP would change either the evaluation of the serious-ness of any defects in HL&P's character and competence or the explanation of the reasons for any such defects.
The restrictions on Phase II contained in the Board's Ma'y 22 order are severe.
They do not seem to flow naturally from the PID.
For example, inexperience may explain some of the problems, but l
For example, inexperience may explain some of the problems, but l
: 3.      .
 
3.
I there has been no litigation specifically on that point to date--
I there has been no litigation specifically on that point to date--
so such a conclusion is premature. The Board seems to take the position that because Brown and Root is no longer on the job, noth-ing B & R did is worth litigating (other than whether the deficien-cies were fixed). This would seem to fall short of the Issue A mandate to determine the character and competence of HL&P based on the past acts of HL&P and its agents, without regard to the remedial steps taken.
so such a conclusion is premature.
A key question under the recent Memorandum and Order is whether HL&P should have notified the NRC of any Quadrex findings or turned the entire report over to the NRC. For the Board to make definitive findings, there must be either an agreement or a full-blown determi-nation of the validity of the Quadrex findings.                           '
The Board seems to take the position that because Brown and Root is no longer on the job, noth-ing B & R did is worth litigating (other than whether the deficien-cies were fixed).
The State of Texas sought discovery relevant to the notifica-tion and reportability of the Quadrex findings.       However, HL&P ob- ,
This would seem to fall short of the Issue A mandate to determine the character and competence of HL&P based on the past acts of HL&P and its agents, without regard to the remedial steps taken.
jected because the briefs on the issue were not in.         The discovery '
A key question under the recent Memorandum and Order is whether HL&P should have notified the NRC of any Quadrex findings or turned the entire report over to the NRC.
provided in the May 22 order appears to close discovery prior to having available the briefs on the scope of the issue.
For the Board to make definitive findings, there must be either an agreement or a full-blown determi-nation of the validity of the Quadrex findings.
The State of Texas sought discovery relevant to the notifica-tion and reportability of the Quadrex findings.
However, HL&P ob-jected because the briefs on the issue were not in.
The discovery provided in the May 22 order appears to close discovery prior to having available the briefs on the scope of the issue.
Therefore, the State of Texas supports CCANP's Motion for
Therefore, the State of Texas supports CCANP's Motion for
              -Reconsideration.
-Reconsideration.
* Respectfully submitted, i
Respectfully submitted, i
L lcw $. 2 ash BRIAN E. BERWICK Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas       78711-2548 (512) 475-1101
lcw $.
* l i
2 ash L
?       '
BRIAN E.
BERWICK Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-1101 l
i
?


o
o
            =
=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                   g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
                                                                                                    '84 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of State of Texas Response to               y"'
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
CCANP's Motion'for Reconsideration of ASLB's Memorandum and Order                     .g Dated May 22, 1984, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities
'84 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of State of Texas Response to y"'
                  ..on.the-20th' day of-June, 1984.
CCANP's Motion'for Reconsideration of ASLB's Memorandum and Order
Charles Bechhoefer,.Esq.                         William S. Jordan, Esq.
.g Dated May 22, 1984, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities
Chief.. Administrative Judge                     Harmon, Weiss & Jordan
..on.the-20th' day of-June, 1984.
                " Atomic Safety and Licensing 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Board. Panel                         .        Washington, D.C.       20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Charles Bechhoefer,.Esq.
                  . Washington, D.C.           20555                 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
William S. Jordan, Esq.
Chief.. Administrative Judge Harmon, Weiss & Jordan
" Atomic Safety and Licensing 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Board. Panel Washington, D.C.
20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C.
20555 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Dr.xJames   C.. Lamb, III.                         .Axelrad Administrative Judge                               1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Dr.xJames C.. Lamb, III.
313 Woodhaven Road                               Washington, D.C. 20036 Chapel Hill,'NC     27514 Robert G. Perlis Ernest E.-Hill                                   Office of'the Executive
.Axelrad Administrative Judge 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
                -Administrative Judge                                     Legal Director Hill Associates                                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 210 Montego Driv'e.                               Washington, D.C. 20555 Danville, California                 94526
313 Woodhaven Road Washington, D.C.
              ~
20036 Chapel Hill,'NC 27514 Robert G.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms._ Peggy Buchorn                               U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Executive' Director                               Washington, D.C. 20555 Citizens for Equitable Utilities Route 1, Box 1684'           .
Perlis Ernest E.-Hill Office of'the Executive
Atomic Safety and Licensing Brazoria,- Texas' 77422                             Appeal Board
-Administrative Judge Legal Director Hill Associates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 210 Montego Driv'e.
:g-'                                             U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lernny Sinkin                                     Washington, D.C. 20555-
Washington, D.C.
                - 2207-D Nueces Austin,. Texas     78705                         ' Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Melbert Schwartz                                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baker &'Botts                                     Washington, D.C.     20555
20555 Danville, California 94526
                -One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002
~
                . Pat' Coy.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms._ Peggy Buchorn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Executive' Director Washington, D.C.
5106' Casa Oro
20555 Citizens for Equitable Utilities Route 1, Box 1684' Atomic Safety and Licensing Brazoria,- Texas' 77422 Appeal Board
                    ~
:g-'
Q San.Anconio, Texas 78233.                           u de.m 6 beam:I-         -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lernny Sinkin Washington, D.C.
BRIAN E..BERWICK 9
20555-
x w-e,. _ , , -}}
- 2207-D Nueces Austin,. Texas 78705
' Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Melbert Schwartz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baker &'Botts Washington, D.C.
20555
-One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002
. Pat' Coy.
5106' Casa Oro Q
San.Anconio, Texas 78233.
u de.m 6 beam:I-
~
BRIAN E..BERWICK.
9 x
w-e,.
-}}

Latest revision as of 11:07, 13 December 2024

Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 840606 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 840522 Memorandum & Order.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20092J812
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  
Issue date: 06/20/1984
From: Berwick B
TEXAS, STATE OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406270135
Download: ML20092J812 (4)
v • d • e


Text

m _Nb.

4 9'

e t

D00:ETED U3n?.;;

[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'84 JiN 25 P3:13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a..:.c n -

BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ifC

$^

InitbeMatterof S

J S

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND S

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

S 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, S

Units 1 and 2)

S June 20, 1984

~x STATE OF TEXAS RESPONSE TO CCANP'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASLB'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED MAY 22, 1984 By memorandum of June 11, 1984, the ASLB invited other par -

u.

ties to respond to CCANP 's June 6,1984, Motion for Reconsideration of:the Board's May 22, 1984, Memorandum and Order.

The CCANP motion E

asky.the Board to " alter its Memorandum and Order to provide the following:

11.

Discovery not limited,as to any aspect of the Quadrex Report.

n[{ 2.

Such discovery to commence after the filing of the briefs l-on notification and reportability by all parties or alternatively an order-to the Applicants that such questions are to be answered re-gardless of whether the briefs have been filed or not.

=-

m 723.

No defining of the issues to be litigated until after the E"

discovery and the prehearing conference, i.e. recission of the Board's limitations on the issues set forth in the Memorandum and l

l Order."

l-The State of Texas supports the CCANP motion, with the qualification that the additional discovery would be,non-duplicative.

8406270135 840620 l

PDR ADOCK 05000498 ey mQg 9

PDR y

3 In its June 24, 1982, Memorandum, the Board memorialized its decision not to admit 20 contentions (proposed by CCANP) on the Quadrex Report. The parties agreed that the contentions could be con-sidered within the existing issues or within the scope of examination outlined in the Fourth Prehearing Conference Order, dated December 16, 1981-(at p. 5)..

The State of Texas discovery conducted last year was based on'a much broader interpretation than the Board now seems to have about the scope of Phase II.

That discovery included, but was not limited to:

F

-a.

the history of design and engineering problems as reflected in the project audits,

.b.

the definition of the tasks given to,0uadrex as the tasks evolved over time, c.

the meaning of Quadrex terminology, the categorization of deficiencies, and the overall assessment, d.

-the causes of the deficiencies found by Quadrex, e.

the Bechtel analysis of the Quadrex deficiencies, f.

the NRC response to discovery of the Quadrex Report, g.

the NRC analysis of'the Quadrex deficiencies, and h.

whether deficiencies in the design and engineering process at STP would change either the evaluation of the serious-ness of any defects in HL&P's character and competence or the explanation of the reasons for any such defects.

The restrictions on Phase II contained in the Board's Ma'y 22 order are severe.

They do not seem to flow naturally from the PID.

For example, inexperience may explain some of the problems, but l

3.

I there has been no litigation specifically on that point to date--

so such a conclusion is premature.

The Board seems to take the position that because Brown and Root is no longer on the job, noth-ing B & R did is worth litigating (other than whether the deficien-cies were fixed).

This would seem to fall short of the Issue A mandate to determine the character and competence of HL&P based on the past acts of HL&P and its agents, without regard to the remedial steps taken.

A key question under the recent Memorandum and Order is whether HL&P should have notified the NRC of any Quadrex findings or turned the entire report over to the NRC.

For the Board to make definitive findings, there must be either an agreement or a full-blown determi-nation of the validity of the Quadrex findings.

The State of Texas sought discovery relevant to the notifica-tion and reportability of the Quadrex findings.

However, HL&P ob-jected because the briefs on the issue were not in.

The discovery provided in the May 22 order appears to close discovery prior to having available the briefs on the scope of the issue.

Therefore, the State of Texas supports CCANP's Motion for

-Reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted, i

lcw $.

2 ash L

BRIAN E.

BERWICK Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-1101 l

i

?

o

=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'84 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of State of Texas Response to y"'

CCANP's Motion'for Reconsideration of ASLB's Memorandum and Order

.g Dated May 22, 1984, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities

..on.the-20th' day of-June, 1984.

Charles Bechhoefer,.Esq.

William S. Jordan, Esq.

Chief.. Administrative Judge Harmon, Weiss & Jordan

" Atomic Safety and Licensing 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Board. Panel Washington, D.C.

20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C.

20555 Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

Dr.xJames C.. Lamb, III.

.Axelrad Administrative Judge 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

313 Woodhaven Road Washington, D.C.

20036 Chapel Hill,'NC 27514 Robert G.

Perlis Ernest E.-Hill Office of'the Executive

-Administrative Judge Legal Director Hill Associates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 210 Montego Driv'e.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Danville, California 94526

~

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms._ Peggy Buchorn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Executive' Director Washington, D.C.

20555 Citizens for Equitable Utilities Route 1, Box 1684' Atomic Safety and Licensing Brazoria,- Texas' 77422 Appeal Board

g-'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lernny Sinkin Washington, D.C.

20555-

- 2207-D Nueces Austin,. Texas 78705

' Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Melbert Schwartz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Baker &'Botts Washington, D.C.

20555

-One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002

. Pat' Coy.

5106' Casa Oro Q

San.Anconio, Texas 78233.

u de.m 6 beam:I-

~

BRIAN E..BERWICK.

9 x

w-e,.

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20092J812&oldid=4332015"