,oo-

\ ' >r/N ,\ ,

8/s 9,,<- ,v s r.a:: s,.y V

1 -

6,- ,, i ; q 10 7G y i ').

gm -~

ryg - J %4 ' G9M

h' 'c zem , T e 'Q3 4" VL s r . .r D S".' A" 'u"r S O.t' r' a__r a .r Cn' s

' r.-hs/. . . m

\'' . %-

w ,7-! 6 6 t--- 93SiCCI. EAR REGULATORY CO:'_IISSIO !'

,s-

0. _>D, , . , . S a- ., ., ,,,I a, , ., D r C .t.. . ,- 1. a oa . c.-II u-,. , _ ,

, ., O .L,,. 1 :::., .ea : .1 . at aL .:

In the :latter of ) -

)Houston Lighting and Power ) Docket ;;o s . 50-493-OL

Company, el al. ) 50-499-OL)

(South Texas Project, )Units 1 and 2 )

AP P LICA2ITS ' RESPO:4SE TO CITIZES;5 CC:!CERiLDAEOUT .ICCLEAR POWER REFOR'IULATED CC.;TENTIO IS

Applicants file this response to Citizens Concerned About

..uclear Power (CC A'!P ) Reformulated Contentions 2 and 3.

,.

L.

CCA:-;P ' s Reformulated Contention 2 consists of three inter-

spersed parts.

The most obviously deficient and the most objectionable

part of Reformulated Contention 2 is found in a series of gen-

eral, unsubstantiated aspersions on the nana"eement and super-

v'sion of the South Texas Project construction by Applicants

and their contractor. Thus, numbered paragraphs 1 through 7

undar the .eading " Introduction" on gaga 1 and lettered para-'

g r a'' hs or ;2ns J. at the ;cp of page 2 as well as lettared.

.

60 } p -7907130 d 7.

9-

- 2-

.c a r a g r a .c h s a . and e. at the bottom of e" ace 2 are but rhetoric,-

suitable terhaps for oral ar ument but i n n. e r m i s s i b l "a vague asv

the sasis for the conduct of litigation. CCAMP does not offer

the slightcst factual support for these patently 1 '.se and ar-

gumentative ccaments. They not only fail to approach the

standards of specificity recuired b" 10 CFR 2.714 out are in1-

oa- t.w,*- "{a]-zu--d~s . . s *.. -"~- t +i c r. a- b" " Y a- nw . . .A i - . ' " . n' "v " a ia: . m., _. ,~,

~ , , - .- ..a

mentative terms such as ' negligent,' ' incompetent' and 'fraudu-

lent' [ .. ;ich] appear to have no factual foundation or basis. . .

should be deleted." Under the heaaing " Introduction" all of the

assertions of CCA.';P should be rejected as unfounded, lacking

.n specificity and inflammator"2 Further, all of CCAMP's.

references to "conspiracj," " gross negligence," in timid a t:.o n , "

t'rouc.nout the filing should be stric:cen.and " falsification" a

The second grouping of allegations in Reformulated Conten-

tion 2 is fcund under the heading " Specific Contantion" and

consists 01 a listing of seven instances, identified as items

a. througn f., which CCAMP cites as a basis for the conclusion

that, "There is no reasonable assurance that the activities

authorized b', the operating license for the South Texas .Iuclear

Project can ce conducted without endangering the healch and

safet, of the ublic." The subject matter of two of these,,

items u. ana _ have been carticular12ca surricient.,v to iden-. . . . . -_. .

., . .

til; "the precise construction defects or practices which the

.ecitioner has in mina and the a.uality assurance provisions: .

shich CC.Y.!P clai.as are ceing violated." Prehearing Conference

360 1~5.

f.

- 3-

Oraer, p. 47. Each of these two items zas preliminarily iden-

tifiad in CCA'.iP's Petition for Leave to Intervene filed underCertificate of Service dated December 26, 1973. As to each of

items d. and f., Ac.clicants agree that Reformulated Contantion 2.

.. the rec.u:.rements of a litic.able contention."' e e t s

The remaindar of the list, items a., b., c., and e., fall-

, u ., n s , . .a m , s , - ,, o 3: er , , - u.,. u, , , e.i-;o u.. t, e e.. - . o-a.- a..v._ ----n--.~ - , . _ .... .. a ..- . - . ..

mattars afield of the alleced practices or events identified in7 o .rn.ue.-,e ,u.

C " ' .' . D. ' o~ D a. ' .i + 4 o r. _#^" m u' a */ e- .a- .a . . .

Intervenor has not identified with any reasonable speci-

ficit; the location and significance of "missinc" reinforcementJ

item b.,,7 nor has Intervenor identified what components

n*bars,

;oe,a o,n- . t n... a.,a ,1, _: , .- n . .. . n ..e...w a , ,a ._, 4 ..,, l u, c n._ a 4. t , e ,v, n .e .- - . m ..u --

m . .

o r ' c'. i t ascertained they *eere, and remain, damaged; nor has

p.- c - -

. 0 ,,e ,u,.- n_ .c. c a c.,.,.0 ., c.a-.d , na n,.e .;u:lc, ;nn. nr . . a .. . . , .c . a- e c , .. ; e ua . -v<u.. .-

has ' een omitted, item c. Item e. is likewise set forth in the

a m, . . ~ g u, .n.e. r a .1 4 ' e G -'.'.'~...a." o# * *^ e 0 " .4 " .4 .". ' l C " '..", .D v'' e +- - v .4 'v' r. . ' " s u.'. . ,4 +-- , .~

. i . . - -.. : u ...

c 1 m_ a . 4 n. . a * u, u-, +v .4 o n s (P.-o_ b..e a in3- C m.,. e. u, . u, ,,. n uo1 1 -c u, - ,y, 4.tu 4. k. n._ n e - .1 o- L o,va . .o -.

9 / Applicants assu.e that the allegations cont.ained in para--'

.la. n t. . .,c e.

, . . _ , _

c. ran. n o r ite:.1 c., 1_ proven, anc :. :.. unresolvec,found to violate 10 CFR, \c:.:endix 3, Sections X and XI.Similarly, Applicants assume that the allegations containedin Larac.ra.ch or item f., if proven and if unrosclved, mi.hc

.

be found to violate 10 CF2, Appenal.. 3, Sections VI and.

T/II. Tha Jeneral language of the remaininc. all,c.ationsm" i o c . o s u' @. . . a " " e ~g _1 , 4 ~. t o- ..4 ,~k e ".io'a 'A- 'in , , ' * -<, t . >. p uv .v-a. _- ...y

g u. . , . .+y. ..-

k*- The rOference t0 "ecuipment doors" dces not CorresCond

*,I I pae 9 9 4 -9

- .k c .9%. 4 f) -=.=.1, , q q [4 h. 4f 9

g .i ' " . . ] 19. ,;F .i * i .9. b. k . #- , b. u uu y ar y . x - - .9 o.- . ..

360 176.

i

,. -

Order, pp. 7.1 ,,), Intervenor has not averred sufficient in-*a

f o rr.'.a t io r' to put anyone on notice as bo the Orecise defects or

"" a "; ' .3 Vo- "s .4 ' l ' ' e G u, -o"via .4 o .a= c .- w. c,. . . . v .

< --. .^

-

v " m' v' "- - - a' ' 'o'".4^'.'.4'a'- y c m .4 2 4 Ce u, . . -

"v~qu .d " o ~. . ~o 'l - o~ . I'I t o "v e "..^w ." .b. m' o~ ."1 o "- c= "_a"N. R.C ." ~~u .l ' t .' o ".a~ c- o"b.o." .o .- . . . . .

. . . .

C 'i . ~- b e 4 .".ly^ ' .4 '.'a * n d .g g - *- .: o n s o .# .'4. * ' *y ^ *. . d 4 .' '. F G. .#'

.i . A 4 - , . n , . wim.w- a . u . -

e-. ----- .. v

- o - - u' a.d c v . . o. " , , a " 'v .4 e c a*a 10 ~- "c' q"u i.-ad to c; uo s o~ a ' " ".ei' '"4 b . . - . . - -'."".o ..

.

" c' s' " 1 ' * 4 n ". s " I.'. a * o~ " ^, ^ ^ ." *u La.47 , a "it". g o ', e ." n _# ".. ,'A .a . . u-_ . ,vu - .r, . .c . 4,,,..,o o ..w ; . .;

. s ,.s e .3 .' a',s a.v a- + n' o, t 4 .: 4+. .Ln s- 4 .m. .: o _;; .

e .C m v, Pv ,, ,. a .v. n .n .e t - C .T , , . v a..A...-- .-.v o a ... .o

macion calling into cuestion certain construction activities,

it snould c. lead enouc.h such info mation to c.rovide the Boardthe parties with reasonable notice thereof. The Board'sana

instructions leave no doubt on this score. Hence. CCA'.'!P ' s

4 ., -,, ,3w,1,f u e .f 4 ,, 4 o , *A,- . . , 1 7 e , ,1 1 . . or4 ., 4. n r., e to A. . . , - . wo ..io. .. ..y 1 , , 4 4 ,, ,, -u ua .- m. ;., u - u 4.. u a - u . . . - y...

Accordingly, items a., b., c., and e. must be dismissed.

The third identifiable part of CCA'!? Reformulated Conten-

tien 2 is set forth at the bottom of page 2, paragraphs or

items a. through d. as general allegations of a failure ofwith their Quality Assurance Plan. '/

*Here,

Acclicants to comu.lv...

again, CCA';P has failed to allege sufficient facts to determine

the significance of its staterents. For example , CCA'.'P alleges

that d e s i"an changer we r e ac. c. rovec' bv. "uncualafied" cersonnel,- .

The Souti' Texas Project Quality Assurance Plan (Sec tic" 4. 7 )

establishes at least four hierarchical 1pvels of engineering

design change revie. and the qualifications for each indiv dcal

a? ) ]I.*,Q TJ g .M w. . p C' O .O 4 .4 a .,%. o E ._3 c

4.*9- E *= O m. . . O. } S.a g ggb- 5g .ta b . gb. .y , .#

- - v - . o - .-

360 177.

..

-

_ 3 _

involvec. CCAMP, however, has not alleged a single concrete

fact that can ce used to determine ': hen, where, or how this

f ormal revie'.' nechanism .;a s abused, or if the challenge extends

-. afomen --sel.c.n,.-+ : .-o . u. u,n

Applicants have set out in detail in the South Texas

Quality Assurance Plan the procedures fo effecting design-

(O v -_4 .a M' . '/ ) . ".' .". L a w a- Av". M.. ~VCad"u-o- da ~.~v - a ' .1-~

2- wc h. ., . . ~ ~s -u a w - v .yy y-. 7

. . suu.ervision or an ,,oric.inal desic.ner, or c.ua,1tv. controy. . . g.

1:or tne

inspectors to assi:ra compatibility Nith cri.a~inal purposes as

CC.7 ::P s ucc. e s ts . On the contrarv.- the $" stem Desi n Descriptiona v

is the controlline document created to exclusively record the

uurccscs of the oriainal desivn and all desian changes and re-. .

c. .

. . . . . ,

:cnducted ,y cognizant engineers witn strict aa-views are

sharpl" disulay what isherence to that document. These facts 1 L

critically : ron"u with CCAMP's vague averments; they do not

impeacP Applicants' procedures nor do they allege any deviation

frca these methods. They are but uncorroborated broadsides.

CCANP has had ample time and detailed instructions frca

the Ecard, and assistance from the Applicant and Staff on the

croper construction of contentions. CCANP has, since prior to.

ci.e Aav. 10 meeting with NRC Staff counsel and Acolicants, been..

*-represented oy counsel. ' Nonetheless, with noted excepti .s,

<>A;plicants' counsel, Jack R. Newman and Melbert D.-'

Schwarz, were each advised br :Ir . Steven A. Sinkin on.

April 30, 1979, that he was then representing CCA'.:P.:1r . Sirt.in filed nis appearance under date of Ma;. 1, 1979.

360 178.

.

p

e ..

C CJ1. P's three varieties of allegctions all remain inappro-

priate for acceptance as contentions in this prcceeding. The

incul~ence of the Board must aave limits in order for the

administrative process to work. This inadeq; ate third portion

of 2eformulated Contention 2 should be dismissed.

~

v. .r .

'spp licant agrees that Reformulated Contsntion 3 neets the

mininua requirements for establishin~ a liticable contention.9 s

.T. T .A.

Acplicants request that the Board dismiss all but items d.

and f. (at c a. . 1-2) of Refor ulated Contention 2 and 2efornu-.

lated Contention 3.

submittedRe s.o,ec tf"lly !y .i

-(VC k /G 9'/dMWJack R. 'ewmanHarold F. ReisRobert H. Culp1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. .: .Washincton! D. C. '0036

a

.t e. , k n ,. . D. a.Sc...a. ,..c . C , L. . . c . L ..n. . - . -- . -

. . a --kr b,Ch.a*les . u.,u.., a ,. ,--

hg,- . P ,. a ., a, . . - . . , , 3000 0,,.m cw, , . -r . , ,,, 7 s. . . _ . . . ... .-...,0.. . , .

u. . 0 , a u.c u.mD a ,., O n ,u h.ous on, ,, e e, . a s 7i00.,., , , , . . , . -

u . .-, -

.

10:5 Connecticut AvenceWashington, D. C. 20036 A tto rnev. s for Ac. c. licant

o. u :. r,. C n. ,c . s. 4 u. , O ,c o- , n s.., u . ., . r.r-..G. . v- et m.n . . a. a v .

BruC P. 30TTS Projecs : tanager of the South Texasa

300] One Shell Plasa Project, acting herein on behalf3.,,.d

",".o. ..o t." c . a' '_ ''' .i ^ '.-'.' o~ ,n. . v,, .a o- - u, n , me.a- -,n,, c .e 4u, ele.. s e/sv. -a e v-

, ,,, - . . . -, , . . - , - . . n ., c,,,rb s . c . . . ,,4 41U . L.'. d D ,,1ML **I vf crue f

a c t i. n ;-* b v. and throuth the City.

Public Service Board of the Cit;q C .c. r .a * ,a a n 2n .u,,,,,4 o ,o .: L ' . . m -)a La. s. .; -ec -t 1. .,- - . .

L v.'% ; L' 4''1' a n <1 i n '.'. .""*1 U"-m *D' m' - r ^T .T ^ n* r' . 2w b, , 7 . m ,. . , c mr% L b . i .4 , m. .eg- , 0

360 l'1.3