ML20049H517
| ML20049H517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203030244 | |
| Download: ML20049H517 (8) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D-p i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA D IfAR -2 P 7 :29 i
i
)
In the Macter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO.)
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2)
)
)
CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES MOTION TO REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE AND INDEPENDENTLY PREPARED AFFIDAVITS WITH RESPECT TO THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH COMMISSIONER ROBERTS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1982, AND WITH COMMISSIONER GILINSKY OF DECEMBER 1981.
On Sunday, February 21, 1982, Commissioner Thomas Roberts apparently visited and toured the South Texas _ Project with representatives of Houston Lighting and Power Co.,
and presumably representatives of the NRC Staff.
Citizens for Equitable Utilities was notified of the impending visit at the very last minute and was unable to send a representative.
We understand the same is true of the other intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power.
As a result, Commissioner Roberts and HL&P, and presumably the NRC Staff, apparently engaged 'in extensive ex parte communications concerning the South Texas Project, in violation of 10 CPR 2.780.
By this motion, CEU seeks appropriate interim remedies with respect to those parties subject to the jurisdiction of this Board.
We are filing a separate request for remedial action directly with Commissioner Roberts.
~
8203030244 820301 l l PDR ADOCK 05000498 G
PDR 1
2 FACTS At approximately 6:00 p.m. on the evening of Friday, February 19, 1982, as Counsel for CEU, I received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as commissioner Roberts' legal assistant and informed me that Mr. Roberts would be visiting the South Texas Project from 12:00-2:00 p.m. on the following Sunday, February 21, 1982.
When I protested that this was very short notice, she apologized and indicated that the trip had been arranged by Mr. Roberts' technical assistant, who had not realized that the parties to the licensing proceeding should be notified.
I explained to Mr. Roberts' legal assistant that Ms. Buchhorn, the Executive Director of CEU, was scheduled to enter the hospital for surgery on Sunday, and that it would be difficult to find someone to represent the organization who was familiar with the proceeding.
Nonetheless, I said we would attempt to do so.
I did not specifically object at that time because CEU has no desire to obstruct what may be useful contacts, and we prefer to cooperate in a situation such as this and to send a representative, even if it involves significant inconvenience.
Upon reflection, however, I decided to inform Mr. Roberts' office that we might be forceo to object to the visit if we were not able to have someone present.
I called his office back at approximately 6:20 p.m. Friday night, but there was no answer.
Late Friday evening, I was able to reach Ms. Buchhorn, who said that she would attempt to postpone her entry into k
3 the hospital by a few hours so that she could be present for the visit.
She later informed me on Monday morning that she had postponed her hospital admission and had been at the South Texas Project site with her husband at 12:00 noon on Sunday, but that no one had been there for the visit.
After waiting approximately an hour, she left in order to go to the hospital.
Guards at the gate were vaguely aware that the visit might happen, but they did not know when.
As a result of the inaccurate scheduling information provided to CEU's Counsel, CEU was denied the right to accompany Mr.
Roberts and participate in any communications.
Violation of 10 CFR 2.780 The matters at issue in this proceeding are extremely broad.
The contention concerning the " character and competence" of HL&P extends to virtually all past actions by HL&P directly related to the South Texas Project.
Future actions and issues, including the qualifications of Bechtel and Ebasco and HL&P's proposed ongoing management of the project with the new contractors ara also subject to litigation before this Board.
It is essentially impossible to have a conversation about the South Texas Project, much less to visit and tour the site, without becoming involved in discussions or receiving communications regarding substantive matters at issue in this licensing proceeding.
Accordingly, Commissioner Roberts' visit to the South Texas Project and any communications that occurred concerning the project betwcon Commissioner Roberts or his personal
4 staff and representatives of IIL&P or the NRC Staff constitute ex parte communications in violation of 10 CFR 2.780.
These violations were not cured by the last-minute notice to intervenors, because that notice was simply inadequate to permit their participation, and it was incorrect concerning the time of the visit such that Ms. Buchhorn was precluded from participation despite having rearranged her schedule for hospital admission.
Requested Remedies Without knowing exactly what was discussed during Mr.
Roberts' visit, we do not know what damage has been done, and we do not know the precise extent of any discussion of substantive matters.
It is conceivable, although highly unlikely, that the visit and discussions managed to avoid the issues in the hearing.
However, we are informed that Mr. Roberts was quoted in the press after his visit to both the South Texas Project and the Comanche Peak site to the effect that nuclear safety issues are so complex that the public did not understand them, which appears to reflect a belief that public participation in NRC hearings is a useless obstruction.
We do not know whether he held this view before his visit to the South Texas Project, or whether something said during that visit, necessarily about the intervenors' participation in this proceeding, led him to that conclusion.
In any event, it is essential to have a full explanation of the events that led up to the visit and of the conversations and communications that took place during the visit both to clear the air concerning Commissioner i
S Roberts' views and to provide a basis for judging whether additional remedies will be necessary.
We are concerned that these developments may be sufficient to require Commissioner Roberts' recusal from any consideration of the South Texas Project.
However, before reaching such a conclusion, we prefer to examine the descriptions of what occurred so that we can avoid requesting recusal if possible.
Accordingly, CEU moves that the Board require the following of HL&P and the NRC Staff:
1.
Identification of all NRC Staff and HL&P personnel or agents involved in arranging for Commissioner Roberts' visit, including a detailed description and chronology of all contacts or communications with Commissioner Roberts or his office, and providing copics of all documents of any sort, including handwritten notes, concerning arrangements for and preparation for the visit.
The description of communications must detail the substance of the communications and must be in affidavit form and under oath.
2.
Identification of all participants in the visit itself, including a detailed chronology describing precisely how the visit took place from the first point at which Commissioner Roberts or a member of his staff came in contact with NRC Staff or HL&P personnel.
The chronology shall state what conversations or contacts took place between what individuals, when and precisely where they took place, in what order, and the substance of each.
3.
Separate sworn affidavits from all individuals involved in or present while trip arrangenents were being made or during the visit itself.
These affidavits shall state the individuals' recollection of all events of the arrangements or the visit and of all conversations or other communications engaged in or heard by the individuals during the arrangements or the visit itself.
These affidavits must be prepared independently by each individual and submitted without review by any other individual and without communicating anything concerning the affidavit or its substance to any other person before the affidavit is filed with the Board.
I g
4.
Provide copies of all other documents related to the visit, including handwritten notes and other handwritten materials, and any post-visit reports or other writings memorializing the visit in any way.
The above requirements are essential to assure both that the full story of this visit is made public and that it is credible to CEU and the public.
Only if each individual provides a separate, unreviewed affidavit will there be no possibility of taint or collusion or even softening of the description of the communications with Commissioner Roberts.
As an intervenor that supports safe completion of the facility and hopes that the facility will ultimately be accepted by the public, CEU believes such complete openness to be crucial not only to fairness in this proceeding but to the future of the project.
Additional Request Related to Visit by Commissioner Gilinsky We have just been informed that commissioner Gilinsky also visited the South Texas Project on or about December 13, 1981, with no notice whatsoever to the parties to this proceeding. For the reasons stated above, we extend our motion and request for remedies to that visit as well, and we will request a similar response from Commissioner Gilinsky's office.
Respectfully submitted,
, s,
William S. Jordan, III Ilarmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
(202) 833-9070 Dated: March 1, 1982 Counsel for CEU
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO.
)
Docket No. 50-498 (South Texas Project, Units 1
)
50-499 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I herby certify that copies of th'e foregoing CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES MOTION TO REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE AND INDEPENDENTLY PREPARED AFFIDAVITS WITH RESPECT TO THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH COMMISSIONER ROBERTS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1982, AND WITH COMMISSIONER l
GALINSKY OF DECEMBER, 1981, were mailed, first class postage prepaid to the following, this 1st day of March, 1982.
Charles Bechhoofer, Esq., Chairman Melbert Schwartz, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Baker and Botts Panel One Shell Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77002 Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J.
Reis Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Office of Executive Legal 313 Woodhaven Road Director Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Ernest E.
Hill Washington, D.C.
20555 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Jack R. Newman, Esq.
P.O. Box 808, L-123 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Livermore, California 94550 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div.
Docketing and Service P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Section Austin, Texas 78711 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Lanny Sinkin 2207-D Nueces Austin, Texas 78705 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Betty Wheeler, Esq.
Tim Hof fman, Esq.
Hoffman, Steeg & Wheeler 1008 S. Madison Amarillo, Texas 79101 Mrs. Peggy Buckhorn Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 o- / 4 - a William S.' Jordan, III