ML20128G832
| ML20128G832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1985 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Bechoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-142 79-421-07-OL, 79-421-7-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8505300325 | |
| Download: ML20128G832 (3) | |
Text
f,C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 85 MY 28 A11:57 Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman 0FFICE OF SECatiARY Dr. James C. Lamb 00CKETmG & SERVlf.F.
Frederick J. Shon BR
- H SERVED tlAY 281985
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL
)
STN 50-499 OL HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
)
)
(South Texas Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
May 24, 1985
)
t MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Applicants' Motion for Clarification of Sixth Prehearing Conference Order)
On May 21, 1985, the Applicants filed a motion for clarification of the Licensing Board's Sixth Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 17, 1985. On May 24, we convened a telephone conference call to consider the motion. Participating were Judges Bechhoefer and Shon (Judge Lamb could not be reached), and representatives of the Applicants, CCANP, and the NRC Staff.
1.
The Applicants' motion proposed to change one of the Quadrex Report items to be litigated from finding 4.3.2.1(1) to finding 4.3.2.1(n). The Board noted that the "1" designation was a typographical error and, without objection, adopted the proposed change.
2.
The Applicants proposed to limit the litigation of the reportability of Section 4.3.2.1 of the Quadrex Report (as a significant QA breakdown under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(e)(1)(i)) to finding 4.3.2.1(a),'on PBA' 288M Bi88lha y
a s
9
y J' the ground that the CCANP contention only relied on that one finding.
The Staff supported that view.
CCANP reiterated its general position that the reportability of all "most serious" findings of the Quadrex Report should be litigated (including findings 4.3.2.1(b)-(o)).
It also claimed that findings 4.3.2.1(c), (d), (1) and (n) were sufficiently related to (a) or to other findings accepted for litigation to warrant being considered.
The Board noted that the basis cited by CCANP for the contention was limited to finding 4.3.2.1(a). We concluded that finding 4.3.2.1(d) was sufficiently related to (a) to be included in the contention, but determined that no clear relationship of findings 4.3.2.1(c), (1) or (n) was apparent.
(In any event, finding 4.3.2.1(n) is being considered on anotherbasis.)
We ruled that adjudication of the reportability of Section 4.3.2.1 as a significant QA breakdown was to be limited to findings 4.3.2.1(a) and(d).
For the foregoing reasons, the Sixth Prehearing Conference Order is modified as follows:
1.
The reference to finding 4.3.2.1(1) in paragraph 5 on page 12 of.the Order is changed to 4.3.2.1(n).
2.
The reference to finding 4.3.2.1 in paragraph 4 on page 11 of the Order is amended to read finding 4.3.2.1(a) and (d).
[ IT IS.S0 ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY-AND LICENSING BOARD 2,t/in 92 u
x)
Char'lesBechhoefer,Chairmag ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. Lamb agrees with the rulings described in this Memorandum and Order.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of May,1985 b
1
.,_