ML20054D996
| ML20054D996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1982 |
| From: | Axelrad M LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204230577 | |
| Download: ML20054D996 (3) | |
Text
.
957tn LAW OFFICES LOWENSTEIN, NEwMAN, REIs 8e AXELRAD w'
1025 CON N ECTICUT AVEN UE, N. W.
. y3
.O*...
.i+
Jaca m.NewMAN WAS HINGTON, D. C. 2 0036 MAmotD r. nres MAURICE AaELRAD mAtuttrN M.sntA 202 862-8400 J. A. LOVE NaONT, J a.
MeCM AEL A. B AU SE R DoWOLAS G. GAEEN DAviO O. POwtLL ROscat LOWEN$7CIN c.ogs.o g a.
c.
April 20, 1982 or covN.cL ST CVEN P. FR ANY2 JBLL C.GR ANY FREDtntC 5 OR AY ALVIN H. GUTTE RM AN MOLLY N. LINDEMAN DAVID.. R A$ MIN DON ALD J. GILvCRM AN Q
N
['
,3[
D Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino e [ @,
7, m
Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts h
n? ' ggj ;-12 g
9 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky t
g g>T' Tn E
'O 3
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon
/ } T T y f g $ ", 3 Washington, D.
C.
20555
- e. a_w Re:
Review of Appeal Board's Order of April 15, 1982 In the Matter of Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al.
(South Texas Project Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL; STN 50-499 OL
Dear Members of the Commission:
On April 15, 1982, the Appeal Board issued an order in this proceeding directing that "another member of the Licensing Board Panel should be now designated to replace Judge Hill."
(Order,
- p. 2).
That Order reversed a decision reached by the other two members of the Licensing Board, who, in a Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 1982, had found a motion filed by one of the in-tervenors requesting Judge Hill to recuse himself " totally to lack merit."
(Memorandum and Order, p.
2).
The Appeal Board issued its Order on April 15 because the next hearing session was scheduled for April 20.
It stated that its opinion would be issued'at a later date.
The immediate effect of the Appeal Board's Order was that, in a conference call on April 16, the two remaining members of the Licensing Board cancelled the hearing session scheduled for April 20-24, notwithstanding the strong urging of Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al. (Applicants) and the NRC Staff that they proceed under the quorum rule.
03 s
}6 i
g304230 W 9 i
b
i
, =,
tOWEN2TEIN, NEWM AN, REis & AXELRAD Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts April 20, 1982 Page Two Under normal circumstances, the Applicants would not decide whether to file a Petition for Review under 10 CFR S 2.786 (b) or request any other Commission action until they had an opportunity to review the forthcoming opinion of the Appeal Board setting forth its reasoning for the disqualification of Judge Hill.
However, in the view of the Applicants the issues of law and policy raised by the Appeal Board's action are so significant that they merit review and ultimate determination by the Commission it-self, regardless of how persuasive the Appeal Board's opinion proves to be.
Accordingly, Applicants have prepared the enclosed Petition for Review which, of course, in the absence of the Appeal Board's opinion is intended principally to alert the Commission that there are matters deserving of its attention.
Applicants would urge the Commission to avoid unnecessary procedural delays by determining that these matters do warrant its review either on the Commission's own motion under 10 CFR S 2.786 (a) cr in response to Applicants' Petition.
Moreover, it is apparent to Applicants that the complex and still evolving situation involving the Appeal Board, the remaining two members of the Licensing Board, and the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (who has to decide whether and when to appoint a replacement for Judge Hill) require that the Com-mission step in to provide the guidance and direction necessary to assure that these matters are resolved promptly and that no further unnecessary delays occur.
Applicants are<therefore also filing the enclosed " Motion for Actions by the Commission in Light of Appeal Board's Order of April 15, 1982."
Since it is unclear at this point whether the Licensing Board plans to proceed with the next hearing session (May 4-7), Appli-cants believe it is particularly important that the Commission ex-press to the Board its direction that the hearings should continue under the quorum rule while the status of Judge Hill remains under consideration.
As described in the enclosed Motion, since the is-sues in this phase of the proceeding relate to the competence and character of HL&P it is vitally important to the Company that they not remain undecided for a protracted period, and there is every reason for the hearings to continue.
Moreover, these are the very issues which the Commission itself mandated be considered on an expedited basis in CLI-80-32, 12 NRC 281 (1980).
l
C Lowzw:T] TIN /NEwwAw, Rzza & AXELSAD Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino Commissioner John F.
Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts April 20, 1982 Page Three The Motion also requests that an expedited briefing schedule i
be established, that the Appeal Board's opinion be served on an l
expedited basis, and that a new member not be appointed to the Board while the Commission considers these matters.
Very truly yours, Il s
l I
Maurice Axelrad I
i Of Counsel:
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, CITY l
OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and I
through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
Enclosures l
cc:
Certificate of Service
____ _ ____-__ _