ML20041B567

Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 820210 Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling That Util Handling of Quadrex Rept Be Considered in First Expedited Phase of OL Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041B567
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/22/1982
From:	Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8202240274
Download: ML20041B567 (6)

Text

m -

/'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~!7s ,

S,E ~

NUCIEAR REGUIA'IORY COHiISSION

/g?p BEEDIE TIE A'ICMIC SAFETfY AND LICENSING DCRED

- fJ .9y

)

In the Matter of )

)

110USIQ1 LIGfrING AND POWER CD. ) Docket Nos. 50-498

) 50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) )

) 9 ,

/ ,

CITIZENS EUR EQUITABLE UTILITIES RESPCNSE j  %, ., ' \( ?

CCANP'S lOTIQi EDR RECONSIDERATION REIATED $ 4 s 1 TIE IIANDLING OF T!-E QUADREX REPORP II -

g.;'>p2$;

'}%A m:%

,y

)

In a filing served on Elebruary 10, 1982, Citizens perned'AboQt j e'

% wM tiuclear Power (CCANP) % that the Board reconsider an e er: g declsion and rule that matters relating to the handling of the Quadrex Beport by Houston Lighting and Power (b. (HL&P) should be heard in the first expedited phase of this operating license pro eding. CEU understands that this notion relates solely to consideration of the handling of the Quadrex Ibport before any Initial Decision is reached on HL&P's qualifica-tions. Ebr the reasons set out below, CEU fully supports this notion.

To assure that the remrd is entirely clear, however, we sphasize that we would not support consideration of the substance of the Quadrex Ibport in this phase of the hearing. -

When this natter originally arose, CEU did not feel strongly about when the handling question should be heard and concluded that it should probably not be included at this stage. 'Ihis was based largely on the concern that such consideration would inevitably involve the substance i s of the Quadrex Ibport, which muid not reasonably be addressed for C3

%s several nonths. CCANP's arguments convince us that we were incorrect.

8202240274 820222 '

//

PDR ADOCK 05000498 G PDR

. 2 We believe that it is essential to hear the handling question at this .

stage in ordar to determine whether CCMP's serious charges are correct, and if they are not, to clear the air and allow the South Texas Project to proceed.

CCANP alleges that HL&P, and particularly Mr. Goldberg, undertook a deliberate conspiracy to minimize the importance of th3 Quadrex Peport and to withhold it frm the NBC. We are not yet prepared to reach that cmclusion. However, CCANP's relatively dispassionate and objective chronology (as distinct frm its separate acocmpanying notes) 1/ raises extrmely serious questions about the actions of IL&P and Mr. Goldberg.

We hope that any apparently ihp q actions by Mr. Goldberg can be adequately explained or were inadvertent rather than deliberate. Our experien with Mr. Goldbe4g has been highly positive, and we are very hopeful that his participation will turn this project around and assure that it is mnstructed and operated safely. We are not so sanguine about other IE&P personnel involved in these events. In any event, we are not prepared to reach a conclusion on these matters without a full opportunity for dismvery and cross-examination.

We of the nest important points in this regard is that an ever darkening cloud now hangs over the South Texas Project. Now even Mr.

Goldberg is covered by it, even if one does not go as far as CCANP in l

finding a conspiracy. It is extr mely important that this matter be fully addressed and Mr. Goldberg's role clearly understood if the If This parenthetical is by no neans intended as a criticism of OCANP.

To the contrary, CEANP is to be ccmnended for so clearly separating its factual presentation from its own arguments and opinions.

\

e 0

3 project is to proceed under his leadership. It is equally important that if these charges are correct, the Board take them into account in reaching its initial decision on the character and cortpetence of E&P.

If the coupmy is to be replaced as lead partner and licensee of this project, or if any other remedy is to be adopted, we believe that should happen as soon as possible to avoid any further delays or threats to safe construction.

Finally, CCANP is correct in arguing that consideration of the handling of Quadrex need not address the substance of Quadrex. It need only address the apparent seriousness of the <b'==nt, which is clear on its face. '1his is particularly true of the allegation that E&P failed to cmply with 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) . h t section requires that the NBC be notified within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> g The only substantive questicms that could be relevant to the inquiry here would be those that were addressed and satisfactorily resolved within 24 haurs. h issue would not be whether Quadrex was right, but whether E&P and Brown and Ibot had resolved all unreported matters within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> so that there was no question of a potentially significant deficiency. 'Ihis would apparently involve no l more than a few witnesses and should take a very short time. It also l

l would not involve any actions taken after the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period expired.

'Ihere is no reason that this matter cannot be heard in this phase. Pbre importantly, allegations of Section 50.55(e) violations go to the heart ,

of the NRC self-policing approach and to the heart of E&P's attitude toward safety and safety regulation. It is crucial that they be heard and resolved at this stage of the prw ing.

1 i \

\

I i

s.-

4 Ibspectfully subnitted, bM #

William S. Jordan, III HAIM N & WEISS'

,i 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for CEU l

Dated: February 22, 1982 i

e f

I t

b

/

'\,

\

.- _ . . . . ~ .

x 1

(NITED STATEC OF # ERICA ,

NUCLEAR PEGUIA'IORY OTHISSIOT BEEDRE THE A'ICMIC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSIGI LIGffING AND POWER CD. ) Docket Nos. 50-498

) 50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERPIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby mrtify the foregoing Citizens For Equitable Utilities Response to CCANP's Motion for Iboonsideration Related To The Handling Of.The Quadrex Peport have been delivered this 22nd day of February,1982, upcn the following:

., 1 Charles Bechoefer, Esq. , Chainnan

• Melbert Schwartz, Jr., Esq.

Atcznic Safety and Licensing Baker and Botts Board Panel One Shell Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Houston, Texas 77002 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James C. Iatb, III Edwin J. Ibis

• 313 Woodhaven Road Office of D:ecutive Icgal Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Director l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Ernest E. Hill Camission Iawrence Liventore Laboratory '

Washington, D.C. 20555 University of California P.O. Box 808, Ie-123 Jack R. Newman, Esq.

• Livernere, California 94550 Iowenstein, Newman, Ibis, Axelrad & Toll Brian Berwick, Esq. 1025 Connecticut Avenm, N.W. '

l Assistant Attorney' General Washington, D. C. 20036 Environnental Protecticn Div.

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Cocketing and Service Section

• Au5 tin, Texas 78711 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Lanny Sinkin Cannission 2207-D Nueces ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78705 ,

I -' ur s

~ .

Atomic Safety and*

Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission ,

Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Betty Wheeler, Esq.

Tim Hoffman, Esq.

Hoffman, Steeg & Wheeler 1008 S. Madison Amarillo, Texas 79101 Mrs. Peggy Buckhorn Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.

Ibute 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422

/nDAMJ William SAordan/III

.~.

\

• Iland Delivered b

m I

k

\

t l

l t

_ __ _ . __ - ___ _.