ML20205G525

Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205G525
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/08/1985
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#485-137 OL, NUDOCS 8511130274
Download: ML20205G525 (7)

Text

p __- __-_-

s Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOhY COMMISSION 38CHETED -

USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'In the Matter of ( 12 Mid8

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND ( GFFICE OF SECRETA 98 POWER COMPANY, --ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-4 98 OCCKETING 4 SEWla

( 50-499 OL BRANCH (South Texas Project, )

Units I and 2) (

CCANP 'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS ' MOTION TO SCHEDULE FOR PHASE III DISCOVERY AND HEARING On October 14, 1985, Applicants filed their Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings. On October 15, the Board, in order not to detract from CCANP's time to prepare- CCANP's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, extended CCANP's deadline for responding to Applicants' Motion until November 8.

The Applicants Motion seeks a Board Order establishing the following schedule for Phase III:

a. Discovery to begin on the date the NRC Staff files its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in Phase II.

b. Discovery completed within sixty days thereafter,

c. Pre-filed testimony filed by all parties l5 days after the-end of discovery.

d. Phase III hearings beinning 15 days after the filing of pre-filed testimony.

CCANP opposes the Applicants' Motion as premature. There are two basic assumptions underlying Applicants' Motion. The first assumption is that Phase III will be necessary, i.e. that h

9 D DR

.y

~

the Board'will not rule'in Phase II that the operating license is denied. The.second assumption is that the fuel load date of December l986 is a' firm date and Phase'III scheduling should be governed by that'date.

CCANPcontendsthagkicensedenialasaresultofthePhase

'II hearings is a possibility. CCANP sees no reason for any' party

-to expend resources on preparing for hearings that may well be unnecessary.

Since the Board plans to issue its decision in February or early March, the three to three and a half month wait for that decision will still leave ample time to pursue Phase III

. hearings, if such hearings are necessary. Even if.the December 1986 fuel load date were realistic, there would still be nine months to conclude Phase'III. The Applicants' proposed schedule would have the Phase III hearing process begun and completed in three months. Even extending that period by ninety days would lead to completion three months prior to the December 1986 date.

.Should the Board decide the Phase III discovery process should begin prior to the issuance of the Partial Initial Decision

-Phase II, CCANP urges the Board to adopt the following. schedules

a. Begin discovery on Monday, January 6 and provide sixty

' days to complete discovery, i.e. until March 7. (This assumes no extraordinary difficulties in conducting discovery.) CCANP seeks the January starting date both as a reasonable date and because CCANP's primary representative has obligations in the month of December and said month encompasses the holiday season.

j. ' b. Allow forty-five days thereaf ter fer preparing testimony,

i.e. until April 21

i i

c. Provide twenty-one days thereafter to prepare foi hearings '

and set hearings to begin on Monday, May 12.

CCANP does not expect r.he Phase III hearings to take longer than one week. The Board would then have at least five months to reach a decision on wb?.t appear at this time to be narrow issues.

The second assumption underlying the Applicants ' Motion is that the December 1986 fuel load date is a firm date. From the enclosed articles, it appears that Applicants may be withholding significant schedule delay information and that a similar practice occurred in the past. The Board has a legitimate concern that licensing. decisions should not delay fuel load at a completed plant. But such concerns should +

not be exploited by Applicants' artificial insistence on an unrealistic fuel load date. See Memorandum and Order (Extension of-Time to file Proposed Findings of Fact) dated October 4, 1985' at 3.

For the above and foregohng reasons, CCANP moves the Bo rd

a. to suspend all activities in this proceeding related to Phase III until after issuance of the Partial Initial Decision Phase II, or

b. alternatively, to adopt the schedule as set forth herein.

- a Respectfully submitted,

, gm - h ,

Lanny Sinkin ,

3022 Porter St., N.W(k.304 Washington, D.C. 20008 for CCANP I s

Cisneros: l STP info "MEP AUGUST 27,1985 "o"7 By ROSSANNA SALAZAR Staff writer The three-month lapse became ap.

Mayor llenry Cisneros claims offi. parent with the disclosure of a memo-cials of the South Texas Project are randum to the committee about the in.

withholding vital lnformation on antici.

pated cost overruns and construction formation that was omitted from the minutes of its meeting, delays on the nuclear power plant. CPS' Jesse Poston, San Antonlo's rep.

The mayor's assertion, made Monday resentative on the committee and its as he walked from a meeting of the City chairman, Monday said he had not seen Public Service board of trustees, was a copy of the memo.

based upon information supplied him by "I can't even tell you If there is a me-a source who he said was "in a very mo," Poston said.

good position to know." lie said he was searching his files for Cisneros, however, declined to iden. a copy of the document.

j tify the source further.

During the board's monthly meeting, The management committee com.

Cisneros, who sits on the panel as an ex.

officio member, demanded to "know prises representatives of the plant's four partners - Houston Lighting &

the truth" - whether pertinent Infor. Power, Central Power & Light of Cor.

mation'about the $5.5 billion power pus Christi and the cities of Austin and plant is being held from the plant's San Antonio.

shareholders and the public.

Referring to news stories this week __

that claimed STP officials deleted infor.

mation on a huge cost increase and con.

struction delays from the minutes of a management committee meeting in 1978, Cicneros said: "Is there going to be another announced delay? Is there going to be another announced over.

run? What I am told is that information does exist."

Cisneros further charged that STP

. managing partner flouston Lighting &

Power is holding back important deta'Is about the project's actual cost schedule delays.

"We shouldn't stand for flouston hoodwinking us in any way, shape or form, llouston has never had our inter-est"in mind, he said.

According to published accounts ear.

lier this week, the STP management committee removed Information from the minutes of a two-day meeting In July 1978 that Indicated the power plant at the time was 12 to 27 months '

behind schedule and that its cost be-yond the 12 month delay would jump about $100 million for every additional six months. The information was made public three months later.

i n

MW p[:n m~.w=m w z.,=

taV, h qi'* [*.n .,4. , 4f .

Ww ~N,e , , .

d a m =r U'5 4'Dfn&y,%W>W'.M!N p ~y ga

'7 f1 6

m E/ ,.

um l'"

c.

~2s pia ga;n5

p2 . - -

y: v-: & '! riAs a w a ex Ee_pda@e p WAc%wth M STATE FINRL EDITION  ::'s. : ,75e Nuc ear project cost sp'rals hushed up .

Critical statements about plant ordered deleted from minutes of management panel

• 1985 De Hoesten Past Co. the plant deleted from the official minutes of a July cities of Austin and San Antonio - the four plant in the construction schedule, a $400 mullon increase 1314,1915,* meeting, thus keeping the information owners - cornprise the management committee. In the plant's estimated cost and a laundry-list of By MARK CANDEIts from the pundic, utility stockholders and the actual Jesse Poston, management committee chairman putentiaDy pouticaHy devating Wa.uation about Post Austin Buream owners, and San Antonio's representative, said there was no the lack of progress is work at SNP.

• lhe minutes are public records and were at times need to include the statements in the official minutes Attorneys for the Baker G Bots, law firm acted as AUbTIN - Representatives of the four owners in or report them to his superiors. He said the omitted secretaries for the manageuent corn:nittee meetings.

the South Texas Nuclear Project deliberately covered O Firad Mership slaamsed/page 22A statements were tentative and not thought out. In a July 13,1!rl8, memndum, attorney Bert up a massive cost increase and castruction delay at However. Graham Painter of HIAP said his board Schwarz wrote:

the plant in 1978, according to documents obtained by the only Inzbile sarce of information about the status of directors would be unaware of the critical state- **In line with the suggestion of the management The Hot: ton Post. of the project. ments If they were deleted from the official minutes. committee, the enclosed draft (of the minutes of the Members d the management committee of the Reisresentatives of Houston 1.lghting & Power Co.- Deleted at the direction of the managernent com-project entered nine highly critical statements about Central Power & Light Co. of Corpus Chrisd, and the mittee were statements about a 12 to 27-month delay See Neelear/page ItA x

e e e

- m . m . - - . m ... ....., _

Nucloar project ceot opirolo huched up

• Continued from page 1A f ,

.. r,w, s

~ . ye .

e, y , , , .

meeting) does not include the following specific J \ ' N*%g,4gy' Q ,;,

statIments as to schedule slippage and cost increase made at these meetings." i j \

.M Q'"M

"" "

• gm m _ .

• g?

Schwar2 then listed nine statements made J3 jW 'i 'W "

by high level officials with HIAP; Brown & , .hl -.ca-* "$

Root Inc., then the plant's builder; and Man-agement Analysis Co. (MAC), a California- '

based consulting firm hired to help alleviate problems at the plant. ,wn ,,

The statements include: _

j' O The Budget and Schedule Task Force now ,

finds a minimum of 12 months slip (construc- N _

tion delay) which probably cannot be made up. a { tw

k i

. I k O That the project is now 12 to 27 months behind schedule.

g mmyg .

.gs

- p*T

• V!"

4 v. .

.? J' n p O The cost of slippage beymd 12 rnonths will NA%. 8 i 4 **%.-

• run approximately $100 million each six months. f, d M* g+'"*M

• N'

" Y'hk s

A o O The $25 million increased authorization for Vo catch-up work had to date stopped detericra-tion of the schedule but had not resulted in any

_C_

• _ _ f .d _

# i.,.sa AP photo catch-up. The South Texas Nuclear Project is being built near Bay City.

O After an inspection of the (STNP) site, the list of the cost increases and schedule delays mature or not fully thought out" statements Nuclear Regulatory Commission projected the were orally given to the commmittee - the from the minutes of the meeting, fuelload date between July 1981 and December published minutes said a " preliminary esti. He said that while he did not recall the spe-1981. mate" indicated a "$2 billion cost for the proj- cific circumstances surrounding the meeting, (The public, owners and shareholders had ect and an 18-month delay in completion of the that the committee members "all go through been told fuel would be loaded at least a year first unit (of the two-unit STNP).' this together" when they decide to revise the earlier than those dates.) This was the first public acknowledgement minutes of meetings, that the project was in serious trouble, as the Poston said the minutes should reflect only O Management Analysis Co. now estimates committee had been warned in July. what actions were taken and decisions made at the total cost at $L7 billion if fuel is loaded The original schedule called for Unit 1 of the meeting, not everything that was stated.

June 1981. STNP to be operating in October 1980 and Unit "Any opinions by any committees that were (The publicly disclosed cost estimate for the 2 in March 1982 and cost about $1 billion. The given out prematurely at a meeting, that did plint at the time was $1.3 billion.) current schedule calls for Unit 1 to be operat- not result in the adoption or action by any of ing in mid-1987 and Unit 2 in 1989 at a cost of the management committee principals is prob.

Three other statements concerned a need to $5.5 billion. ably not worthy being in the minutes of the spend another $150 million to $200 million for Attending the July 13,1978, meeting was Ron meeting - especially anything that is as im-development of piping and electrical work and Stinson, a senior partner in the consulting firm, portant as budget and schedule," he said, schedule slips on specific construction activi- MAC. Poston said he did not report the statements ties. Stinson wrote a memo to the file about the to San Antonio city officials.

Although the minutes made public contained meeting in which he documented an extensive "Just for someone to come up and say references to problems at the plant, they, none- discussion about the nine statements removed ' based on what we see now this is what it's theless, did not mention the nine statements. from the minutes, going to be'- that's not an item that we would "Mr. (Henry) Key (of IHAP) advised that After the problems were described to the come back and report," he said, the in<!cpth report being prepand by the Bud- management committee, Stinson wrote that ifL&P's Painter said the statements also get and Schedule Task Force would not be Central Power & Light then indicated "here we would not have been available to his compa-l completed and ready for presentation until the are coming down to budget time again and a ny's board of directors, which represent the l middle of September," the published minutes year ago we had a budget of $L3 billion and we u'ility's stockholders.

read. were promised the schedule could be main- "They (the board of dinctors) would know if "lle explained that the report required both tained if we spent an additional $25 million. somebody told them, but this wasn't a meeting more work and more time than first had been "We all bit the bullet and agrwd to spend of the board of directors, so they would not anticipated . . . Mr. Key stated that projec- the additional $25 million and now you're indi- knc r," he said. "If adjustments were made to tions as to budget and schedule now available cating that the project is slipping an additional the meeting minutes, the board would not know wtre simply estimates and were to be con- 12-27 months and the price is going to go up thf i unless whcever was reporting to them I

! firmed by mid-September." substantially. Austm and San Antonio will have chose to tell them."

But during thme meetings of the manage- massive problems due to this particular in. "The management comtnittee received a ment committee in September, the specifics put." preliminary, oral briefing on work being done about the magnitude of the cost increase and ' The two cities were being criticized by anti- by a study group looking at budget and sched-construction schedule delay were not recorded nuclear and consumer organizations in the late ula and the committee did not want to publicize in the published minutes. 1970s for continuing to pump hundreds of mil- any numbers until they had a formal report in "Although it appeared that substantial cost lions of dollars into the troubled project. writing from that group," Painter said. "And increases and/or schedule delays might occur. Stinson wrote: "Borchelt of Central Power in fact they got that report sometime in mid-it appeared that such increases and delays and Light at the end of the meeting seemed September. The committee then discussed could not be quantified with any precision until quite goosey and indicated that the manage- whether they would accept it or not and they at least 30 days are devoted to further study," ment committee needs excuses for the slip. did accept it and they ultimately made a state-according to minutes of the Sept. 21,1W8, pages and increases. He does not want infor- ment (in October.)

meeting. mation that would indicate *the committee did But he conceded that the committee "did-But eight days later, the committee met not know what they are doing' and they need died with the minutes in any case."

tgain, and the minutes stated: "Mr. M.L. Bor- certain face-saving devices." There also is sworn testimony from former chelt (of Central Power & Light Co.) and Mr. According to Stinson's memo, Key of HL&P Austin Mayor Carol Keeton Rylander that indi.

H.L. Peterson (of the city of Austin) expressed told the management committee in July "we cated she never knew about the statements l

the view that the schedular and budget reports are in the neighborhood of known costs of $1.5 made at the meeting.

received in September of 1978 were unsatisfac- billion, and from the trends there are at least In a 1985 deposition, Rylandet said she did tory and inquL-ed as to when MAC could finish another $150 million to $200 million that will be not suspect serious problems at the plant until its own report." required." 1979 - a year after the meeting.

When the management committee met in San Amonio's Poston last week said that it "We thought everything was going well,'

Octobar 1978 - three months after a detailed was "just good business" to remove the " pre- , Rylander said.

p - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION

. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD pgcgg7g USNRC In'the. Matter of (

) g W 12 All:18 HOUSTON LIGHTING. AND ( Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY,2ET AL. )

-(South Texas Project, ( 50-49900CXET

@pcg fNGh%)fl" I Units 1-and 2) ( 8 RANCH CERIlEICAIE DE SERVICE I hereby certify that. copies of CCANP'S RESPONSE TO JAPPLICANTS' MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR PHASE III were served by deposi t in the U.S. Mail,-iirst class postage paid to

. the f oll_owing individuals and entities on the 8t.h day of November 1985.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Br ian Berwick , Esquire Ch ai rnian Asst. Atty. Gen.

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory,Commisnion Environmtl. Protection Washington, _D.C. 20555 P. D. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Texas 78711 Dr-. James-C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esqui re 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.

Chapel _Hi11,-North Caralina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Comm.

' Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon

-Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esquire U. S.-Nuclear Regul story Conmisnion 1615 L Street, NW,-Suitr= 1000 l Washington, D.C. 20555' Washington, D.C. 20036 Melbert Schwarr, Es; qui re Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy buchorn 300 One Shell P1ata Executivo Di r ett or ,. C. E. U. Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1, Dox 1684 bra orac, Texas 77422 Atomic Saiety and Lic. Bd.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Diane Curran, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555

'Harmon, Wei su t< Jordan 2001 S: Street, N.W., Suite 430 Atomic Sai ety .and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20009 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatery Comm.

Pat Coy Washington, D.C. 20555 5106 Casa Oro

San-Antonio,-Texas 78233 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretar y 1 Ray-Goldstein

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Gr ay and Becker Washington, D.C. 20555 901 Vaug5n.Dldg.

007 Brazos

-Austin, Texas - 7S701

- .] .

Lann Sinkin