ML20054M881
| ML20054M881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Jordan W HARMON & WEISS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M836 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-205 NUDOCS 8207150084 | |
| Download: ML20054M881 (1) | |
Text
a 44
+/
.,. 4 UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY QOMMISSION Q WASHIN GT O N, D.C. 20555 -
o .* .
h 67
( ** / April 15, 1982 OFFICE OF THE
, COf.1f.110SIONER .
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
HanLon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N. W.
Suite 506 Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Jordan:
In response to the concerns raised in your letter of March 1,1982, I am forwarding this Memorandum to File by Mr. Gary Zech who accom-panied me on the tour of the South Texas Project on February 21, 1982.
The attached memorandum is intended to summarize the events and con-sersaticns which occurred during that visit. I trust this alleviat,es your CoGCernS.
[ ely ,
Thomas M. Ro erts -
Commissioner
Attachment:
Memorandum to File
,, cc w/att.: Mr. Lanny Sinkin Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. James C. Lamb, III Ernest E. Hill 4 Brian Berwick, Esq.
Jack R. Newman, Esgs Ms. Kim Eastnan' Mrs. Peggy Buckhorn Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Appea' Board Docketing & Service Section 8207150084 020621 PDR FOIA UDELL82-205 PDR
/b
- a'
[
4, A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, E, 3
, $ WASWN GT ON, D.C. 20555 I
- e hxp".
k \ * *..+ p 8 March 4, 1982 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER as-MEMORANDUM TO FILE FROM: Gary Zec
SUBJECT:
SOUTH TEXAS VISIT Although I cannot recall the exact date, sometine during the first week in February, I called Mr. John Collins, the Region IV Administrator in Arlington, Texas, to discuss with him a potential visit by Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts and myself to the Region IV offices in Arlington. I indicated that the preferred dates were February 22 and 23 with a return to Washington on the 24th. Mr. Collins suggested that, due to the traffic problems in the Houston area, we should consider visiting the South Texas project on Sunday, February 21, followed by a visit to the Region IV
/ offices and to the Comanche Peak facility.
'(
As with other visits by Mr. Roberts to regional offices, the purpose of this visit was to meet the regional staff and to discuss any issues or problems that they wished to bring up. When visiting a regional office, Mr. Roberts has visited nuclear reactor facilities in the vicinity in order to familiarize himself with the facilities the Commission licenses. My call to Mr. Collins was in response to Mr. Roberts suggestion that we visit Region IV. I suggested that we also visit the South Texas facility outside of Houston, Texas, and possibly another plant under construction within the Region IV district.
During the week of February 8, Mr. Collins and I finalized arrangements for the trip--such things as who on the Region IV staff would meet us, where to stay, etc. I asked that Mr. Collins prepare some background information for Commissioner Roberts review prior to our trip to Houston on the 21st.
Since I was out of the office for most of the week of February 15, I did i
not talk to Mr. Collins again until February 19th when I confirmed our itinerary and acknowledged that we had received the advance infomation. I also called Mr. William Crossman of the Region IV office to discuss his offer to meet Mr. Rober ts and myself at the airport. At no time did I speak to any person in Applicant's employ regarding the trip.
Because I was not in the office most of the week after confirming the trip arrangements and because the office was very busy on those days that I was in, I did not think again of the Texas trip. Specifically, I did not think
'[ about the South Texas facility being the subject of a contested case and, therefore, did not think of notifying the parties.
N g/)f? _
. . f
,[
2 Af ter arriving at hone on Friday the 19th, Jessica Laverty, fir. Roberts' Legal Assistant, called me at home to ask me whether the parties to both the South Texas and Comanche Peak proceedings had been notified. When I said no, she volunteered to try to call them for me.
On Saturday the 20th, I received a call from Mrs. Juanita Ellis, a party to the Comanche Peak proceeding. We discussed the possibility of her accom-panying Mr. Roberts and myself on the Comanche Peak facility tour on the 23rd. I called Mr. Clyde Wisner of the Region IV office and discussed this with him. I also asked whether the parties to the South Texas pro-ceeding had been notified regarding our visit to that site on the 22nd. He indicated that they had been notified, and that they had indicated that they probably would not accompany us on the tour of the South Texas plant.
Mr. Roberts and I arrived in Houston at approximately 10:00 a.m. on the 21st. We were met by Mr. Crossman, who drove us to the South Texas faci-lity. We arrived at about 1:30 p.m. We met with Mr. Jerry Goldberg and another associate from the Houston Lighting and Power Company. Even though we expected no one, we asked Mr. Goldberg whether any parties from the proceeding had arrived. He said he had not seen any, but called the visitor's center to confirm this. Mr. Goldberg was advised that no one representing the parties was at the visitor's center. We therefore pro-ceeded with the tour of the facility.
We indicated that, in view of our flight from Hobby Field in Houston at 5:00 p.m., we would have to leave at about 3:15 p.m. As it was then almost
' 2:00 p.m., we were given a brief description of the history of the faci-lity, prior to our walking tour. Commissioner Roberts asked what were the circumstances which led Houston Lighting and Power Company to hire the Quadrex Company to review construction work at the South Texas site. Mr.
Goldberg explained that, due to his perception that there seemed to be excessive delays in the construction schedule and perhaps some over-designing, he had decided to hire a company to do a detailed review of the architect-engineer's activities at the site. He indicated that he was dissatisfied with the report because its very general nature will make it difficult for HL&P's new architect-engineer to use as an action document.
Mr. Goldberg further stated that Houston Lighting and Power Company had ultimately fired Brown & Root as architect / engineer and as contractor on the South Texas facility. He said Brown & Root was being replaced by Bechtel. He also stated Ebasco would take over as contractor.
s We then proceeded with the walk through of the facility, which included the Unit I containment area and areas which ultimately would be the control room and the cable spreading room. We continued our tour in a van to nbserve more readily the intake structure and discharge ponds. We then toured one of the equipment buildings that is being used to store equipment that will ultimately be installed in the facility. We left at about 3:15 p.m. Due to our tight schedule, we did not call the visitor's center to determine if any party had arrived during our tour.
'. .%q
/$.ARfC UNITED STATES y ' '*
,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
E WASHlfJ GTotJ, D.C. 20555
(
- go April 15,1982 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER -
Mr. Lanny Sinkin Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonic, Texas 73212
Dear Mr. Sinkin:
In respense to the concerns raised in your letter of March 5,1982, I am forwarding a Memorandum to File by Mr. Gary Zech who accom-panied me on the tour of the South Texas Project on February 21, 1982.
The attached memorandum is intended to summarize the events and con-versations which occurred during that visit. I trust this alleviates your concerns. -
Sinc re y,
(
T o... s M. Robe s '
Commissioner
Attachment:
Mbmorandum to File cc w/att.: William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. James C. Lamb, III Mr. Ernest E. Hill Brian Beneick, Esq.-
Jack R. Newman,.Esqt.
Ms. Kim Eastman Mrs. Peggy Buckhorn Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Docketing & Service Section Y d O /
f-/7
(
DOCKET NUMBER ~
PROD. A UTIL FAC .. .r.,
eec .
2}
March 5, 1982 P C,c .E, E. .--
- Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion . E.R 4 .P3 34 .
Washington, D.C. 20555 .
- C~;. : ',7 ii.~ , W v i
Dear Corynissioner Roberts:
Cu,. Eurg; . l, tiCE .esy(
I am writing to you on behalf of Cit'izens Concerned About '
Nuclear Power., Inc. (CCANP). I represent CCANP's interest
'as an intervenor in the , operating license proceeding for -
the South Texas. Project. As an intervenor, CCANP is entitled to all rights and protections.provided for a party pursuant to 10 C.F.R. % 2. 780.
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention -
actions on your part which we consider a clear violation .
of 10 C.F.R.% 2.780. On February 21, 1982, you visited the South Texas Project and spent at least two hours with Houston Lighting and Power personnel with no intervenor -
representatives present.
My absence resulted from totally inadequate prior notice of. .
your visit. I received.a call at 8:30 a.m. on February 20, 1982 informing me that you would visit the site 150' miles from my home the next morning. I was unable to arrange'to be present on such short notice. .
The other intervenor, Citizens for Equitable Utilities (CEU),
received notice of your visit at the Washington, D.C. office of their attorney at approximately 6:00 p.m. on February 19, 1982. A representative of CEU did in fact go to the Visitors Center at the time she was told to be there. After waitin'g an hour and receiving no message or other instruction, she .
left. A guard employed by the licensee twice stopped to 3 talk to her about her presence. She informed him why she was there, but he never commu:;rirete&-any- furtiher iiist' ructions-
. to her. k" Ji. .n ,.: .. . .s -. . r m ? .
s .o .
In addition, various media representatives did not come to
~
the site for your visit because the licensee informed them ~
they would not be allowed}to accompany you on your tour of the site:
Since you did visit the s te and spend con' side'rable"tybe'i1th the ~
applicants for the operating license, we must assume that-you did entertain-of f the record communications from parties to a proceeding for the issuance of an coerating license regarding substantive matters at issue in the lic'ensing proceeding now pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From this assumption, we conclude your visit violated NRC rules on ex parte communications.
. >(
19~C"} ifDP .
V f
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Page Two
- March 5, 1982 .
To remedy this violation, CCANP proposes that you return to Texas- to visit in San Antonio with myself and members of the.CCANP Board of Directors. We,.of course; will give ample notice of the time and place of your' visit to San Antonio to,all parties to the operating license proceeding. * '
In that same spirit, a copy of this letter is beina sent-to all parties.
At the San Antonio meeting' representatives of CEU will be invited to participate in the discussion with you. Other parties, in particular the NRC and the applicant repre- ,
sentatives will be welcome.as observers. An equitable:
balance can then be achieved.
Please inform me at your earliest convenience of a suit'able date for your visit to San Antonio. .
For Citizens Concerned -
About Nuclear Power, Inc.,
U j-Lanny Sinkin 838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212.
c.c. Members of the Commission STP Service List
- e
%g 9
_