ML20079J326
| ML20079J326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1984 |
| From: | Sinkin L SINKIN, L.A. |
| To: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401240292 | |
| Download: ML20079J326 (1) | |
Text
,
30' January 16, 1984 Victor Gilinsky Ogg,p r, Commi ssi oner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 TW JM 23 P2:r7
Dear Commissioner Gilinsky:
the South Texah.ypr:i.Pr.oject ha's As I am sure you are aware, been a
licensing matter in litigation befoggMIiVfDNuclear Regulatory Commission for some time.
A central issue in the licensing inquiry is the character and technical competence cf Houston Lighting and Power, the Applicant.
Nuclear the partners in the South Texas Nore than a year ago, the prime" Project joined in filing suit against Brown and Root, contractor on the nuclear project until its removal in late 1981.
Brown and Root countersued charging management incompetence on the part of Houston Lighting and Power.
I am writing to suggest that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff should review the record of this law suit to date to see if-is evidence which would be of importance to the -licensing there in reaching their decision on the license application.
board As with most for three reasons..
suggestion I
make this intervenors in the South Texas proceeding have, intervenors, the had little in the way of financial resources.
Discovery and consequently, been
)
evidence presentations in the hearings have, limited.
In the law suit, on the other hand, millions of dollars The record of the law being spent to develop the evidence.
are
- suit, therefore, contains much information which the intervenors.
could not bring to the attention of the licensing board.
the ihree The second reason for my suggestion is the precedent of Island case where NRC review of court evidence provided Mile the applicant.
important new inf ormation about the perf ormance of The third reason is that the judge in the case has placed a gag order over the evidence preventing public access to the documentation developed in the case.
I am certain, however, that The NRC the judge would permit the TJRC to review the documents.
the licensing board staff coul'd then bring to the attention of matters that no other party can provide.
licensing case is important not The South Texas Nuclear Project plant case but also because the case will only as a nuclear power in,
time the meaning of corporate character define for the first the nuclear context.
In reaching such a
definition and determination, the ASLB and through them.the Commission should the applicant.
have avai l abl e the most comprehensive record on law suit would produce such a record.
Reviewing the Si pe,er e1 {, -
p/ ~ /r
- Ad%
~
f<,,. -
8401240292 840116 PDR ADOCK 05000498
" Lanriy Sinkin O
PDR 114 W.
7th, Suite 220
&gO
/
8, d b' # A 'd Austin, Texas 78701 a-.~
,, e...,<c,