ML20128A233
| ML20128A233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-630, CON-#385-630 LBP-85-6, OL, NUDOCS 8507020603 | |
| Download: ML20128A233 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
U[fY ggasconnerca885*
U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Opfp[c 6/26/95 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS JG ARD OFFa E P M"'
- i '
In the Matter of (
00CKEiht
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND ( Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, (
Units 1 and 2) (
GG60E SEEGIEIG81100 9E IESIIDQNY SOUGUI ESQd CG6bE W11NESSES In its Memorandum and Order (Telephone Conference Call of June 21, 1985), the Board ordered CCANP to file a statement of what it intends to prove through the testimony of all non-NRC employees identified in CCANP's Identification of Witnesses, s .. filed June 10, 1985, together with come identification of why it expects each witness to so testify. Pursuant to that Order, CCANP herein provides statements of what CCANP expects the first eleven (11) witnesses named in CCANP's identification of witnesse to testify to.
+
- 1. Mr. Don D. Jordan - CCANP's request for Mr. Jordan to be subpoenaed is based on the perception that the Applicants' summary statement of Mr. Jordan's testimony to be presented by Applicants, filed on June 7, 1985, did not include matters clearly set forth by the Board as subjects on which the Board expected Mr. Jordan to testify, specifically Mr. Jordan's failure to mention the Ouadrex Report or the pendency of a far reaching review of Brown and Poot's design and engineering services during his Phase I testimony. Ree Mamorandum and Order (Phase II Hearings en Quadrex Report Tsuues, LEP-05-6, dated February 26, 8507020603 850626 PDR ADOCK 05000498
& Q)
G PDR
e i >
0 1983 at 19. ,
! CCANP considers Mr. Jordan obligated under this Board Order to testify to these matters and that, therefore, the subpoena to
- testify to these matters is arguably unnecessary. CCANP also L
j expects that Mr. Jordan's prefiled testimony will in fact address ;
l these two issues, further obviating the need for a subpoena. i I CCANP's request for a subpoena is based on an abundance of '
caution to ensure'that Mr. Jordan does in fact testify to these i matters.
t
- Since the two issues first became matters for litigation in
- the Board's February C6th Order and since no party had discovery j specifically on these matters, CCANP has no specific knowledge as j
to how Mr. Jordon will testify regarding these subjects. In order
- to attempt to meet the Board's June 24 Order, however, CCANP I
j offers the following as its expectations.
l If Mr. Jordan chooses to testify truthfully and reestablish his character and that of his corporation before the Board, CCANP i
expects Mr. Jordan to inform the Board that HL&P knew the Quadrex Report was a devastating critique of Brown and Root's design and engineering process; that HL&P concluded that revelaticn of the Quadrex Report to the Board and parties would shock the public L
endangering further support for continuing the project at a time when public support was already low, give the intervenors a field i day castigating HL&P's and DLR's incompetence, result in cancellation of the carefully prepared hearings about to begin, j i
cause' the ASLB and/or the NRC to consider shutting down all safety related work at the project, and otherwise produce a i
public relations, licensing, and, economic disaster for the {
o
e e
project; and that, consequently, Mr. Jordan cdrefully avoided mentioning the Quadrex Report.
If Mr. Jordan chooses to testify falsely and further impugn his character and that of his corporation, CCANP expects Mr.
Jordan to testify that mentioning the Quadrex Report in the licensing hearings simply never occurred to him or that he did not consider the Quadrex Report relevant to the operating license proceeding.
If Mr. Jordan chooses to testify truthfully and reestablish his character and that of his corporation before the Board, CCANP expects Mr. Jordan to inform the Board that HLLP knew that removing Brown and Root as a-e would be a major shock; that HL&P concluded that if HLLP revealed to the Board the fact that HLLP was' seriously considering removing Brown and Root as architect-engineer and, in fact, decided to do so in the midst of the Phase I licensing hearings, the Board would react by suspending the carefully prepared hearings, that public support for the project would plummet, that the NRC would refuse to approve further safety related work at the project and move to shut down the ongoing safety related work, and that intervonors would declare the decision as proof that the case being presented to the ASLB cried out for license denial and had forced HL&P to act; and that, consequently, Mr. Jordan carefully avoided mentioning the far reaching review and decision to remove B&R.
If Mr. Jordan chooses to testify falsely and further impugn his character and that of his corporation, CCANP expects Mr.
Jordan to testify that mentioning the review and the decision to 3
remove BLR during the licensing hearings simply never occurred to him or that he did not consider informing the Board of these events as necessary for any reason.
- 2. Mr. George Oprea - In CCANP's identification of witnesses, CCf.NP set forth that Mr. Oprea would also be expected to testify reqarding his failure during his Phase I testimony to mention the Quadrex Report or the pendency of a far reaching review of BLR's design and engineering services. The same observations and expected testimony set forth above for Mr. Jordan apply to Mr.
Oprea on these two matters.
CCANP is also calling Mr. Oprea to testify regarding communications with the NRC Staff about the Quadrex Report which occurred between August 19, 1981 and September 9, 1981. CCANP herein amends the dates to August 19, 1981 to October 6, 1981.
Once the Quadrex Report was discovered by NRC investigators and its existence made known to the Region IV and Washington Offices of the NRC, Mr. Oprea was contacted by the NRC to request an unrestricted review of Quadrex. In response, Mr. Oprea agreed to the review and offered to conduct an overview of the report for the Region IV office. An NRC staff member did review the report but did not return to the regional office with a copy.
Subsequently, Mr. Oprea presented an overview of Quadrex to the regional office. Later Mr. Oprea travelled tp Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the removal of Brown and Root and the Quadrex Report with Mr. Stello and Mr. Collins of the NRC. CCANP expects Mr.
Oprea to tantify that throughout this period he consistently took the position that the Quadren repcrt was very general in nature, 4
. . . .- - - . . . . . - - _ - . _ - - _-. . . . . . - = - - _ _ - -
1 s
and that there was no need for HL&P to provide the report to the NRC. Mr. Oprea is also expected to testify that he knew if the report was provided to the NRC, it would end up in the public document room, available to intervenors, the press, and the general public. Finally, on this matter, Mr. Oprea is expected to l
l testify that he knew the NRC considered it likely that a 50.55(e) 4 report on the Quadrex Report as a whole should be filed but continued to refus'e to do so and argue against doing so for most of the same reasons cited as the expected truthful testimony of Mr. Jordan.
} In addition, Mr. Oprea is being called by CCANP to testify i
j regarding the repeated requests to the NRC Region IV office by j
i HL&P to conduct safety related construction work in the time f
i period after HL&P received Quadrex up to the date HL&P withdrew such requests after the release of the Quadrex Report to the ASLB. Mr. Oprea is expected to testify that HL&P made such i
requests fully aware that the Region IV office had not seen
. Quadron and that, had the Region IV office been given Quadrex in i
1 May 1981, such requests would have been less likely to be l
l approved and might even have been refused.
! 3. Mr. Jerome Goldberg - In CCANP's identification of witnesses, 4 CCANP set forth that Mr. Goldberg would also be expected to ,
l testify regarding his failure during his Phase I testimony to j
i mention the Quadrex Report or the pendency of a far reaching i
review of Dt,R 's design and engineering services. The same l
observations and expected testimony set forth above for Mr.
I
, Jorden apply to Mr. Goldberg on these two matters.
1 i
~ . . - - . _ _ _ _ .
____.,..,____,[d_.,. _. . _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
CCANP is also calling Mr. Goldberg to testify regarding the repeated requests to the NRC Region IV office by HL&P to conduct safety related construction work in the time period after HL&P received Quadrex up to the date HL&P withdrew such requests after the release of.the Quadrex Report. The testimony of Mr. Goldberg is expected to be the same as set forth for Mr. Oprea on this matter.
- 4. Mr. Richard Fra:ar - In CCANP's identification of witnesses, CCANP set forth that Mr. Frazar would al.so be expected to testify regarding his failure during his Phase I_ testimony to mention the Quadrex Report or the pendency of a far reaching review of B&R's design and engineering services. The same observations and expected testimony set forth above for Mr. Jordan apply to Mr.
Frazar on these two matters.
- 5. Mr. Cloin Robertson - CCANP is calling Mr. Roberts to test his recollection of the events surrounding HL&P's decision to report only three findings from the Guadrex Report to the NRC on May 8, l'?31 and to see if that recollection of the events coincides with the testimony to be provided by Mr. Goldberg and Dr. James R.
Sumpter. Mr. Robertson is expected to testify that during his participation in the HL&P review of the Quadrex Report, Mr.
Goldberg made it clear that even though he thought there might be a need to report many of the findings in the Quadrex Report and even to turn over the entire report to the NRC, the goal of the review was to minimize the number of reports to be made.
- 6. Mr. M. E. Powell will be called to testify regarding his 6
i knowledge of the Quadrex Report at the time he reported three findings to the NRC regional office on May 8, 1981. Mr. Powell is expected to testify that he followed the direction of Mr.
Goldberg in only reporting the three findings and had little, if any, knowledge of the actual substance of the entire report. Mr.
Powell ir also expected to testify that the HL&P procedure in place at that time for deciding whether 50.55(e) notifications would be made wds not followed in the Quadrex episode. He is being called to testify that the Incident Review Committee, of which he was the chairman at the time, was charged by HL&P with the responsibility to make such determinations, but that the IRC was bypassed by Mr. Goldberg and that the IRC, in fact, only reviewed the notification decisions made by Mr. Goldberg, not the entire report.
- 7. Jack R. Newman - In general regarding the calling of attorneys Newman (7), Gutterman (8), and Axelrad (9), CCANP directs the Board's attention to the prehearing conference transcript for October 16, 1984 at pages 10843 through 10847. Mr. Axelrad represented to the Board that a failure to follon the dictates of the dgGuite rule should not reflect on the character or competence of the Applicants but should instead be blamed on their attorneys. Specifically, Mr. Axeirad stated that while the attorneys were aware of the Guadrex Report, indeed were in Houston preparing for the licensing hearings when HL&P received the Quadrex Report, they did not ask to seu it and gave no legal advice on whether the report should be turned over to the NRC or the Board. While CCANP considers the attempt by the attorneys to 7
i f
accept.all blame for the McGuite violation merely a confirmation
. of their continued misreading of the requirements of McGui te as t
not creating independent obligations for the Applicants and their attorneys, CCANP is calling the attorneys to test the validity of their unsworn representations to the Board. Unless their recollections have changed since October 16, 1981, CCANP expects the Applicants' attorneys to testify that the were aware of the Quadrex study whire underway, the final report, and the potential for 50.55(e) reports originating from Quadrex; that they never asked to see Quadrex before September 1981; that they were never approached by HL&P personnel to give an opinion on whether 50.55(e) or the McGuitg rule required turning the Quadrex Report over to the NRC Staff or the ASLB.
Regarding Mr. Newman in particular, in addition to what is stated generally for all three attorneys, Mr. Newman is expected to testify that he played a key role in the decision making processes of HL&P during the January 1, 1981 - September 24, 1981 time period and would logically have been the person to whom HL&P would have turned for advice regarding the handling of the Quadrex Report, that he was available constantly to the Applicants for advice should they have sought such advice, and that he was in constant interaction with Applicantu key witnesses in early May 1981. Mr. Newman will be questioned about the representations he made to the Board and parties regarding the Quadrex Report, including his discussions with the representative for CCANP at the time the Quadrex Report was delivered to CCANP and the letters regarding Ouadrex he sent to the Board and parties. He is expected to testify that he know full well that 8
l 2
t the release of the Quadrex Report would cause a great deal of a
trouble for HL&P and particularly for Mr. Goldberg and that, through his representations, he sought to minimize the importance l of the report and the role of Mr. Goldberg.
Mr. Newman will also be called to testify regarding his i failure to inform the Board about the far reaching review of i
BLR's services undertaken by HL&P and the decision by HL&P to remove D&R. He is expected to testify that while he recognized the potentially significant impact on the hearings then underway if- he informed the Board of these matters, he decided not to do so for reasons important internally to HL&P, such as confidentiality.
1 i
- 8. Mr. Alvin Gutterman - In addition to the general observations
't
! regarding HL&P attorneys set forth above, Mr. Gutterman was also available to the Applicants for advice at any time and i
! particularly at the time the Quadrex Report was received. Mr.
Gutterman also had conversations with Mr. Goldberg regarding the ,
f Quadrex Report and potential 50.55(e) reports which Mr. Goldberg i
l does not remember. Oral Deposition of J. H. Goldberg, September i
27, 1983 at 121-122.
- 9. Mr. Maurice Axelrad - In addition to the general observations regarding HL&P atterneys set forth above, Mr. Axelrad was also I they
- available constantly to the Applicants for advice should ;
i~
have sought such advice and was in constant interaction with i
Applicants' key witnesses in early May 1981. Since the (
]
- representations made to the Daard about the role of HLLP's 1
l 9
a licensing attorneys were made by Mr. Axelrad, he is particularly appropriate to test the validity of those representations.
- 10. Attorneys for Baker and Botts - CCANP specifically seeks the L Baker and Botts attorneys who participated directly is the preparation of the prefiled Phase I testimony of Mssrs. Jordan, Oprea, Goldber g , and Frazar. It is not clear from the transcript whether Mr. Axelrad's representations encompass the knowledge and actions of the Baker and Botts attorneys sought. CCANP expects at least one of said Baker and Botts attorneys, the one who prepared Mr. Goldberg, to have been fully aware of the Quadre::
Report and the impact the report seemed to have on Mr. Goldberg and HL&P management, that said attorney (s) made no effort to modify Mr. Goldberg's testimony or any of the other prefiled
' testimony dealing. with design and engineering to reflect the Quadron Report, and that said attorney (s) made.no effort to see that on redirect Mssrs. Jordan, Oprea, Goldberg, and Fra:ar amended their previously incomplete answers to include at least a men *. ion of the Quad ex Report.
- 11. Mr. Jesse Poston - Mr. Poston will be called by CCANP to testify regarding the discussions held by the STNP Management Committee on the Quadrex Report, both before the report was delivered and after the May 7, 1981 delivery. Mr. Poston is expected to testify that three weeks prior to the receipt of the final Quadrex Report, Mr. Goldberg told the Management Committee that all of the Most Serious Quadron findings would be reported to the NRC since they affected licensing. He is further expected to testify that after receipt of the Quadrex Report by HLLP, the 10
1 t
- Quadrex Report became a major problem recognized by the partners as facing the project. Mr. Poston is further expected to testify that members of the Management Committee repeatedly questioned whether the Quadrex Report would be turned over to entities outside the project, such as the NRC and the intervenors, and that repeatedly Mr. Goldberg refused to do so. Finally, Mr.
Poston is expected to testify that the members of the Management Committee were familiar with the requirements of 50.55(e) but took no steps to independently assure that the HL&P decisions on 50.55(e) regarding Quadren were appropriately made.
Respectfully submitted, 614m %
Lanny Sinkin Representative for Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.
3022 Porter St., N.W. #304 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 966-2141 Dated: June 26. 1985 Washington, D.C.
11
4 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OT.,E*E' U%sC In the Matter of (
)
HOUSTON LIGHTINO AND ( Docket NosgCJ50g9El Opl2:14 POWER COMPANY. ET AL. ) 50-499 OL (South Texas Project, (
Units 1 and 2) ( gh- 'gj BRANCH GE8ILEICGIE DE SE8VICE I hereby certify that copies of CCANP*S SPECIFICATION OF TESTIMONY SOUGHT FROM CCANP WITNESSES were served by hand delivery (*) or deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 26th day of June 1985.
- Charles Eechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.
Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb. III Administrative Judge *0reste Russ Pirfo, Esquire 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555
- Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge
- Jack R. Newman, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Melbert Schwar=, Esquire Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Duchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Executive Director, C.E.U. Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1, Bou 1604 Brazoria, Texas 77422
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Harmon, Weiss 24 Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20009 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Pat Coy Washington, D.C. 20555 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 7923; Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ray Goldstein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1001 Vaughn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20555 007 Brazos Au-tin, Iexas 78701 7
Lann EnEin *
.