ML20062M624

Motion for Tx Pirg to Present Addl Evidence,To Order Applicant to Serve Tx Pirg W/Quadrex Rept & to Rule That Need for Power Is Tx Pirg Contention.Alternatively,Requests Admittance as Tx Pirg Contention.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20062M624
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/07/1981
From:	Jeffrey Scott TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8112170370
Download: ML20062M624 (9)

Text

b

@yd3 UNITED.3TATEC OF AIERICA enym

!!UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO:!

OMc BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A!!b LICEH5IIIG BOARD

'81 DiC 14 P4:25 In the Matter of X

//A X

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMP /dIY X

Locket IIo. 50- (

9 :.lV ~ -

\\ \\w \\ 0)

,7 X

(Allena Creek, Unit 1)

X MOTIONS FOR:

g OECl 6 Jggl5 I 1

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE u.s. %

'!?

2. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF RECORD

3. HEV.' COUTENTIOHS TO BE ADMITTED C),

• f new evidence has recently become available t. _

e and material and significant to the above proceeding. A RG asks this board to require and allow thic evidence to be added to ahe record (still open) in this proceeding.

The purjose of thic hearing ic to fully develop all relevant facts nececsary to reach a correct conclusion on whether or not to issue the applicant a construction permit. The Intervenor must be

~

allowed to present evidence to the Board whose duty ic to then conduct an affirmative and objective investigation o f the facts.

Of fige o f Communications o f the United Church o f Crict v. FCC,425 F

543,546-47 (DC Cir, 1969). The URC must see to it that the record 2

is complete. It hac an affirmative duty to inquire in to and consider all relevant factc. Scenic Hudcon Preservation Conference v. Federa]

Forer Commiccion, 354 F 608,620 (2nd Cir, 1965). Fore where HEPA ic 2

involved the URC agency in required to have a" full dicclocure" of all

' relevant factc and alternativec.' Environmental Defence Fund v. Coras of Engineers,325 F supp 749,759 (E.D. Ark,1971). The URC Board in required to " seek the aid of all available expertise and formulate their own position". Green County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commiccion, 435 F2 412,418-422 (2nd Cir, 1972). This Board must fully 3112170370 811207 p5*03 PDR ADOCK 05000466 0

PDR

$ gll I

?=:l '

~

^

develop the factc. even in an uncontested proceeding. Calvert Cliffo 1109,1117-1119 (DC Cir,1971).

Coordinatine Committee v, U.S. A. E,C.,449 F2 First a gross mistake hac been made by the applicant and. staff when they claimed recently that the " record" was closed in this proceeding. If the record was closed why are we meeting on December 7, 1981 A number of recent events have happened which greatly affect the present proceeding. A complete record requires that these be events and the1r impacts on the proceeding be added to the record in thin case. Recently the applicant announced that it had fired Brown and Root as its design engineer at the South Texas Project.

Still labor it was announced that Brown and Root would. leave the South Texas Project totally, and that construction would be totally stopped except for maintenance, This vill cause the conctruction schedule at South Texas.to be extended significantly as has been admitted by the applicant. The extent 'r.d effects of this construction delay at South Texas is relevant and material and significant as to the issue o f using South Texas as an alternative site for Allens Creck. It is clear now that South Texas will not be complete before construction of Allens Creek could start. Therefore the STP workers could easily bransfer to the construction of Allens Creek at the STP site without any social impact on the community.

On November 3,1981, the recidents of Austin, Texas voted to sell'their chare of the STP project. Since then the City of San Antonio has actively expressed an interest in celling its share of STP to Houston Lighting and Power. The Mayor of San-Antonio hac even met at length with the officials of Houston Lighting and Power on this iscue. A number of new articles quoting the Auctin and San 2

9 Antonio officialc with authority to sell their charea of STP make it clear that they would cell-their shares (16% and 28% respectfully) of STP to Houcton Lighting and Power at the very reasonable and fair price that they were charged due to the construction management of Houston Lighting and Power. The 44% of STP makes 1,100 trll available to offectively replace totally Allens Crcek at least 5 years earlier at at very significant coct savingc(their own coct). TEX PIRG proposes to have officials from both citys to testify before this board as to their willingnesc to sell their chares of STP to the applicant at the came cost that they were charged by the applicant. This "need for power" issue is relevant and material and significant to Tex PIRG contentions 5,7, AC 8, and AC 12. These contentionc specifically state that other energy cources will replace the "need for the power

• from Allens Crock Nuclear plant. The alternative of conservation is "need for power'.' The applicant will be forced to purchace the Austin and San Antonio chares of STP by economics and the Public Utility Commiccion and the Texac Legislature, and the NRC and the Public.

On August 13,1981 tne applicant admitted that residential concervation will cave 25%, and reduce peak demands in such a way as to significantly reduce now power plant construction costs.

This was based on the applicant's own otudy of actual homes. The study was called " Project Conservation". The results of this study must be-added to the record. This in relevant to Tex rIRG contention 7(d).

Recently several now co-generation planto have been announced.

The Celancsc and Big Three plant is proposed to be built at Bayport in Southcact Harris County and will generate 70 MW of electricity (enough to supply the city _ of Tyler, Texas). The electricity would 1

i replace electricity that the applicant had forecast to cupply, i

3.

9

j

~

-Rocently the applicant agreed. to interconnect with out of ctato uti it' cs co that.it can receive electricity from those states. The' i

~

applicant hasl attempted to aquire power from ac far-away ac TVA. They can nowf do co cince TVA hac forecact an. cxeccs of electricity and the

~

-' interconnection is'now ts be poccible coon. Tex PIRG propocos that

~

- officials from TVA and Gulf States Utilities tectify as to their willingnecs to sell electricity lto the applicant.

On October 12,1981 it was disclosed that the applicant had obtained information'1n-May of 1981 which chowed that itc STP had cix generic dec1gn problems that coubl prevent the plant from-being licenced by the.URC. However the applicant did not report th'eso

- results to the URC ac required. Neither did it dicclose that informat-

' ion 'to the STP URC Board even wt?n its vice president for nuclear engineering, Jerome Goldberg was questioned on the subject after the applicant had.the report. Alc] the applicant ic reported to have not. disclosed to STP intervenors the fact that they had hired c

Quc irer, cven when directly ached for a lict of all consultanto paid

$10,000. or more for work on the STP.These events raise both questions

-ac to the applicante technical qualifications (Tex PIRG 31), but: also as to whether or not the applicant has always been completely candid and fully dicclosed all of its relevant and material knowledge in the present prococdings. Tex PITG asks to be given a copy of the Quadrex report and acks that additional tectimony.be roccived on this cdbject in thic proceeding. Tex PIRG-now believec and contenda that the

- applicant' has proven that it is not competent to ~ build a safe nuclear

~

.powar plant. Certainly it should not'ctart another one-until.it chons Lthat' it can got a operating license for STP.-

9 4.

9 s,----

r n

e

The three' attached articles cerve as examplec of -the many.

newcpaper stories on the above. iccues. All the incues raised in this

. motion are baced on new -information that was not available rhen these iccues were heard in this proceeding.

Tex ~PIRG prays that thisLBoard :

1. ~ Allow Tex PIRG - to present additional evidence and cross-examine applicant ~ and Staff witnesses on the above mentioned is.suec-to the extent that they are relevent, material, and cignificant to Tex PIRG contentions-already admitted in this proceeding.

2. order the' applicant to give Tex PIRG a copy _ of its Quadrex Report.

3. Rule that "need for power" is a Tex PIRG contention,relevent to several Tex PIRG contentions, and an issue in these proceedings.

4. In the alternative, if the Board will not rule as requested in 3, then Tex PIRG acks that the "need for power" issue be admitted as a Tex PIRG contention.Thic Motion was not made earlier because we thought that "need for power"was a Tex PIRG contention that evidence had already been heard on. Also the City of Austin only r:cently actually voted to withdraw from the STP co that it was clear that the applic-ant could buy Austins share. It was even more recently that we learned that San Antonio was actively trying to sell its share also. Also it was only recently that the final agreement allowing and requiring the applicant to interconnect out of state became final. Only in the pact 1 month acco has coveral co-generation projects and the results of the applicanto conservation studies become available.There is no other.means for Tex PIRG's interest to be protected. Tex PIRG is the only party with these type iscues in this proceeding and we are nrepared ~ to_ -procent evidence 'on them to prepare a sound and complete

~

5.

r w

t I

record. Tex PIRG doca not feel that the admiccion of thic contention will broaden the prococding, becauce evidence has already been prec-ent'ed on it.Only the now evidence based on recent events need to be added to the record. This would have to be donc even if the issue was already a contention co no time would be lost.

5. Call witnocces from the City of Auctin, City of San Antonio, and the TVA to supplomont the record on these new events so that a complete and not one sided record can be developed.

Recocctfully cubmitted, 8she

__6dmes Morgan :JcotT,~Jr.

13935 Ivymount Sugarland, Texas 77478 (713) 491-4887 Attorney for -Tex PIRG Dated Dec. 7,1981 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of the above Motions have either been cerved by U.S. Mail or perconal service on this the Dec. 7,1981, l

on all required parties.

Wshh Yh e i

6/ames Morgan Scott, Jr.

t 6.

D.

. ~w g@..,*HL&P compan' officials show * !.

~

.. -,n-m n.-. h.ttle m. terest m. purchasm.g..

a

.s g

n 4

Austin share of nuclear plant ^ J K f T.

f

@'*/ ; By JORJANNA PRICE A NAEROW MAJORITY of voters in HL&P msy be approached also by f.;[

rz:J. S.; Past Aestia Barena 1979, the last election, approved staying San Anton% which may follow Austin's ; g a

3 In the project in order to reduce the.hd and al' out of the South Texas - p I i'" * "1 ;

AUSTIN - De city of Austin started, city'a reHance on expensive natural gas. ' t.rget.

~

making plans Wednesday for saling its

share in the South Texas Nuclear Pro-The mayor did not have a sales price afayor Henry Cisneros will tr,", talk.

y$.g+'.,

3 to HIAP about the possibility of the

. ject, but Houston Lighting & Power ex.

ready for prospective buyers leut said..

Austir. has authorized $377 million in,

e w any pat of our ownership," said pmr P : pressed minimalinterest in,becoming a bondm far. -.

Cheryl Thomas, assistant to the mayor.

customer.

Thomas said the Austin vote does not )

WC -

Acting on a -

?. a "nat vdl carry us through the 1963.:. influence San Antonlo's interest in sell.

f.

i"B C mandate is. -

wa

payment," she said, "but our part of it d*' p.' sued by voters'f

};

is far more than that now. I think some,. ing, but that Cisneros anticipated that if t-

"HL&P bought a single megawatt from C

g C in a'

. one would need to pay today's prices.'

Austin, it would be buying a lot" be-

'.:.~-4 Av reterendum.

3 1

In 1973, Austin became a partner with' cause,HL&P would substtenu !t M

-f

,7 j7g

styled melt ; Air Houston Lighting & Power Co., San nat.Uar' capacity for some other plan.

E

, down, the-

'. Antonio and Central Power & Light Co.

,ned project.

M, s ;

cou ncil in-of Corpus Christi in a planned $1 billion W@,,WJT A structed Mayor

-#v Carole McClel-

. nuclear plant. But cost ovemms and a SAN ANTONIO, WHICH centrols threatened shutdown of the proje< t put it percent share in STNP, has been u i

c

- Ian to nott!y c; years behind schedule.

,, py with the spiraling cost of the project..N8"'

4P

! Austin's three j

De latest cost estimate of $4.7 billion, and is atudying alternate energy l

partners in the J

issued just weeks before the referendum, sources.

1 p STNP tha,.

would push Austin's participation to $700 According to the STNP contract, part. L a mHllon.

ners have first opticn in buying anya p/

gy

Austin's 6 p a af percent in e -

4 t

HL&P, managing partner in STNP, shares that become available. Austin.

1 l:

est vill be up McClellaa.

recently fired Brown and Root Inc. as would have to wait seven months before t 1.

,Q for grabs andto design engineer and hired the more ex-sef!!ng its share, unless all partners L m..

d test their feelings for waiving a sewn 6 perienced Bechtel Power Corp.

agreed to walve that requirement. Any j ;, c j -

e$<'p'f month waiting period before any trans-Though HIAP now buys electricity-partner wanting to buy Austin's share v-4, action may be carried out.

from Austin at the rate of $66,000 a day, must notify the city wit!@___the next gj> D

\\,

In an unotticial count of Tuesday's the company has been aloof throughout three months.

'e i

f. 6';,,

balloting, voters lined up 34,726 to 24,726 the STNP campalgn here.

Who would buy Austin's share and for m

ll In favor of getting out of the half <om-how much was a hot campalgn issue.

l AT pleted project.

"THE ELECTION WAS their busi. STNP propanents said citizens would be. pj, M

^

4 /

In response to the 58 percent major-ness," said Graham Painter, HL&P authorizing the' city to sell the project-A*^:

ity, McClellan said she would proceed as '. spokesman in Houston. "If Austin kants. for an nr Jetermined price - may 1

p* !,'$

fi i 4

" expeditiously as possible in finding a.. to sit down and talk with us, we won't. than mcney spent.so far - and at terms s

d4T buyer at a good price."

, turn theta way. But we certainly haven't,. that might not benefit the. city. They pl.y s

i@ )p ne SI"NP vote.- the sixth in nine. been in the market foradditionalshares.- said as soon as voters approved the sale, gg:A 1. enf years - was a defeat for McClellan. That's not in our long-range plans."

._ there would be a " buyers' market."

- t -%@,,J"

( --

1f after she campalgned to keep Austin in Painter said HIAP still plans to start STNP opponents, whose simple cam-h*{-

the nuclear market.She and other STNP construction next year on the 1,200 ? paign slogan wa 1 pA supporters maintained nuclear energy megawatt Allen's Creek plant in Austin' Texas utilities, including HIAP and the J *C"b will be the cheapest available in the next County, 45 miles west of Houston. He city of Brownsville, needed more energy

' j'*7

• ?

k.hds decade, despite the construction prob-said there has Leen no consideration of and Austin would be able to recoup all 4*g lems and spiraling cost of STNP.

buying up Austin's 400 megawatt capact. Its investment.

7I" N'

@; C "I was disappointed, of course, but. ty in STNP and downgrading the Allen's However. Brownsville officials said T-s y the message was very clear," said 'Ctek project, for which the Nuclear after the referendum they were no lone L;[J.~

'g<

McClellan. "We still have a serious ener-Regulatory Commission has yet to issue er interested in any of Austin's share 4'1

. p. ' F _

=

p gy problem, but that's tomorrow."

a constniction petinit.

4 and were studying other energy sources.

]'Q..

l_y :._.. _......

eq

,, y - c.,

y-wh

.y

/L **v I.

O wy 5 * ;, n P

e4 f

/

i s

/

1 W

44

g --

a k d.',

.i.

a L

,x a

p.

3 At q

2A./The Houston Post /Wed., Oct. 14,1981 '

+

t q

uc ear project

/

i j y; Design problems called significant ;

l

• Hy HAROLD SCAR!EIT staff there was still awaiting review copies of ping construction at this point and bringing :

.,- Peet Environment Writer the report.

in another designer is probably the appropri. 1

(

Brown & Root Inc., the now-removed de-ate way to ;;o," Seyfrit said.

,' A critical. report on the South Texas Nu-sign engineer of the nuclear project, on Mon-

.The ligat company announced on Sept. 24

-Cleir Project raises some " pretty signifi-day denounced the QJadrex report as largely after getting the Quadrex report in May, that 7

. cant" design problems that -if not correct-

" inaccurate and misleading."

it was replacing Brawn & Root as the project E

i cd - could jeopardize licensing of the.

The construction firm said Quadrex was design engineer w1th the more experienced I

[ Cauclear plant, a Nuclear Regulatory Commis-

" totally unjustified" in concluding that the Bechtel Power Corp.

E

-ilon official said Tuesday.

project's operating license could be affected.

Brown & Root said it stands reqdv tn da-d ' #

Karl V. Seyfrit, regional NRC director.

Quadrex, a California consulting firm, said fend its_wnrk u

• Pf fnautrv but.Scyfrit

said,the findings of the Quadrex Corp. do not...it had found 10 generic defects in design engi-said be knew of no nbe for such an inquiry. __

., *givt him serious concern about construction ineering that could seriously threaten licens-

"Our posture, considering the change la -_ {

4

. work already completed.

/*

ing of the project near Bay City.

the design engineer, is to look at the raw _ l

? "But if construction were to continue with it said a number of other miscues could plans and procedures that Bechtel will put in.

lagging design work and without proper de<

impair the nuclear plant's reliability once it place, and make sure they address the Qau.

l

'?stgn verification, there could be some real goes into operation.

drex concerns," Seyfrit said.

j

! ', strious prob 1 cms down the road," Seyfrit Although HIAP commissioned the Quad-A Quadrex spokesman, asked for comment

\\

,%id.

rex report, a spokesman said even HIAP on criticism of the report, said the consulting

. - "If the situation were left unresolved, it.

views some of Quadrex's findings as "incor-firm could not discuss the report without 1

lcertainly conM wmedize'lleensing of the rect or irrelevant."

clearance from its client, HIAP.

ilan "

Based on a preliminary review of the re-An HIAP spokesman, Don Beeth, said the I

g frit's comments were the first substan-port, Seyfrit said none of the problems cited utilgity coulamuch clearance. He said

'tive assessment by an NRC official of the by Quadrex appears to be unfixable. He said HIM wants to reserve public comment on l

Quadrex report since.it'became public last IllAP also appears to be taking proper cor-the report @

weekend.

rective action.

Seyfrit said Quadrex has a good reputation f

y, J An NRC~ official in, Washington.said the "I think HIAP's action in essentially stop-in the nuclear consulting field.

l V.*^

AM-

' :.4 *.:

, c,

7. *. %

.. w

• o.

..f-g 4...*<,. g '.c, p.,. -

g*s,.'1.,..,,.-

,..j.,, a.,.A.,,...y.,.g...

n, 7,.,

,w 2,.

.y

,,..i,,..,..."..,v.s.,..h.., - 2

,,W'__

,,, t.

.. %..g..

c, %

.t g

. y,:

~ K.r

..,:.._.. g, ny n.~ n..gc '

f, s;....

c. w,. :.,,.

e n..,

1.,

.. g.;.

.. m,,

.., -.. ~,-........,.c. w.,.,.

1

.a, e.e.

s..

r

~.

.,s

,s.

W $.**.? M.., y.D $ d~.R.l W Si f.n.:.g: ?,Q t-l.4.l,ii.D 9 &g...f;+.h C

&.m ig-X, r

.g 4

,.. x.

.;. W.$.

w ;yev~.s. ~

. y.9,,9.s

..J s

m

. ~..,

x.,

~..

v s.

%.y;r.s,,, s.., m., s,.

~

• A s,s,

... d'..,h. %,...e.,.w3

. ~-,

... r s.

. W s.

.a#* I YGMdV. =,~ ;.

y ^ V *,s c..

.s

% w-

~..',s.'-

x.

. N. w. ~. 4.m.

.,,.; :;.A,.

l

<r-

~~

. y.,.

,. u

.C.

-a -

,L

.s -

.* - \\. e.

• 5**

)., g.,.,..~. p~ * %*ib.y. M;.,4.

b hf*-.., c'. 'n.,,q,,.r.-. ' v 7 y,. p ';.."s'g C"':..... < #.h'#. p..' n* q..

.k

~N

- =

q --

• A f

., y"'

• %..,../.

e

,~, f, ;

.yQ

.4,. *f,*.':.;;-

s s

l l

_.,C ;.

- + ~ ~

. L.

= _.

• _g.

e. 2 a n..

w.

a i

l g'

t s,

d h

g

..g g

..k

-.g gb

.O g

TQ.%' &. '

t.:->.~.n.1:* y.;- : :-Qn*m. g:.-l,+t%-G '. A.$ - 'xhj:..??4.s.T."

?

_ m

._.. w...

m I

a i

NRC Saced with tricky questions s

u

. q ;s?-

n m

b, out South Texas Nuclear Project

'4 a

By RAROLD SCARLFIT During a Saot 14 haaring session in i

Post Environment Writer

(

a r l Houston, Sells asked Hl.4P for a copy,

/

Gen closeted himself for an entire f 'j.!

E

• Did the Houston Lighting & Po r

[,,,

nlorning to pore over the mat;ive f,,

Co. dehate

~~t the now-fa-e:f Y report.

d mous Quadrex report on the South Sells then briefed NRC hearing Texas Nuclear Project from the Nu-

=[4 - [

attorneys on the report, Sinkin relates, M. 6-a hggf

- nat will be one of the trickier ques-

"g[~, '

clear Regulatory Commission?

Qf and they recommended that HIAP fur-ff.*-K" r

nish copies to the hasting board l

tions facing an*NRC licensing board On Sept. 24. HL&P announced it was when it reconvenes Tu_esday in AusthL d

c for the first time since mid-September.

YOUR WORLD/ Harold Scarlett removing Brown & Root because of 8

deficiencies in the m*tv., _,but not 4

'Since that last meeting, HIAP has the quality - of its engineering work, fired Brou & Root Inc. as design engi-privately with hearing parties and On s

e

t. 28. HL&P furnishad copies neer and hircd the Bechtel Power NRC sources and found this sequence of the Qua rex report to the NRC and I 8;4 Corp.; Brown & Root has quit as con-of events:

the hearing board.

{

^

F - 3 structor; Austin residents have voted The Quadrex report, done by the nu.

CCANP, in short, suggests HL&P tomet m' " * ~'" "n?" San clear consulting firm at H1AP's re-did not fire Brown & Root untilit was '.e+

g, s i Antonio has rpade mnm- 'n oif Q quest, apparently was delivered to forced to do so because of the immi-h h:

h MM*'

share, and both cities are hinting at..HQP in the first weak nf Wv.

nent rfa, a u e yuadrex report.

• M lawsuits against HL&P and Brown &

Te9ymg in the hearing on May 19, Root.

HL&P s vice president for nuc. lear At the time, HL&P said the Quadrex ne Austin meeting is to consider engineering, Jerome Goldberg, was report was not a primary factor in the I

how the licensing hearing - in asked about any problems with Brown removal of Brown & Root, that the re-progress since last May - should pro- & Root s design work.

port only confirmed a problem already a

1 L' ceed in view of this flurry of events.

Goldberg in response described two known to HL&P*

0

' Before the hearing board will be two of the specific problems cited in the An HL&P spokesman also found i

motions from Citizens Concerned Quadrex report, Sinkin says, but 'did fault with the Quadrex report, saying a 1 eq About Nuclear Power, a San Antonio not mertfn, tha Quadrev remrt itself number of its conclusions were "incor-rmup opposing the nuclear project.

Similarly, when HL&P reporteif the rect or irrelevant or poorly taken

,-7"' h

.OM The CCANP motions contend H1AP two items to the NRC as potential defi-positions."

CM.,

'dg did conceal tha raport by the Quadrex ciencies, it did g with<ut mentionine--

Corp., which raises serious questions the Quadrex report.

The CCANP motion chided HL&P 1PW "

about Brown & Root's design engineer-The CCANP motion argues that for suggesting tts own chosen consult.

,ing on the South Texas Project.

- Quadrex actually exposed.,d_gg.'.::s of-

. ant was incompetent. As a final fillip hek O g

AM, "3fi

• - For that reason and others, CCANP deficiencies that should have been re-CCANP noted it had asked HL&P in ar$ ' 7' '

/

, etitions the hearing board to move to ported to the NRC.

earlier hearing session for a list of all hM k[(..}

p

_rezoke the NRC constmetion perml(

Its consultants ever paid"$10.000 or '

d' F','M In fact, CCANP maintains, the find.

more a year for work on the South ~

[,- I

1. ~~ For its part, HL&P insists it has ings were of such sweeping seriousness Texas Projeh.

f f[*- -

1 Q *g.j handled the Quadrex report in "an that HL&P should have relayed the en-

,,, g, y

_ ort!erly and professional manner," and tire report to the NpfluithLn,,2,Qours.

Presumably, Quadrex was paid well WI L.w-it denies any attempt whatsoever to over this amount. But the HL&P ii.>t h %V.

(F.,fb.I cover up the report.

Sinkin, however, says records indi-suppiled to CCANP - and attached as eQ*#

I cate NRC sta!! personnel first learned an exhibit to the CCANP motion -

PT. < ' #

^,*D~.

.But HL&P spokesman Don Beeth of the Quadrex report by accident dur-d,;cnot mention p-

/

[fMh

'3 said the ut!Lty's attorneys do not want Ing an &lgust invc >t!"tinn at the h@I' a Y

to get into a detailed reb::ttal of the ' project site. Tney were lookiiig into a Sinkin contends t!!at if grotect em-

.,. g t.,

CCANP charges until the Austin rnatter covered in the report.

E 0[to C

'P hich le t the 7

hearing.

Word of the report eventually reach.

gust inv7stwauon, the Quadrex report b,.",

i. h

' Lanny Sinkin, a CCANP leader who ed Donald E'. Sells, NRC manager for "foCIdYe*t!tlen from the NRC to this

'~ *

. ~ ' ' -

dreg up the motions said he talked the project da te."

g

, gy

.w.

n,4.,I +

M

• g@i,lE n

_ ~ -

7 "S'

p.

f*** W Sja t

t

_~

e,e sID -

g 9

9 g

m9 8

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _