ML20150A960
| ML20150A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1988 |
| From: | Newman J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5833 2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8803160106 | |
| Download: ML20150A960 (4) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c~
u
?
NewMAN Sc HOLTZINOEH, P.df((p(G ggm a. serw.aAN 0685 L STR E ET. N.W.
wsWAu E, SAtm. s4.
vonN E HOLT!68eGra,st.
Dov0L AS L. MM Sromo
- M FEB -8 41 :13 M.T.M.E'.n-.
=g=,,
. sm~ovo~.oc.*
nN eL s A.ov.N.,. s..
nA; =
M;v a te g,,,
no.......oo mAfaLstN =. se cmc; ct %.,3,:,
Ao=w.owtw.
- v#,,*,.'"2 00CXCi;rpi ey ;;q
","O^,'ug' td4hCH atwNs. urso 4 soan T stov0a.sa_
suracT.u ucotau.oTT m4TwLatN sAnats vAsst
=vLxAu
.c-AcL A SAvu.
ALVIN M. GUTTER
- TAN Emmet R. MTTEAto4 go,sgt,v, February 8, 1988 g a;AN,,
ILCMM P. GALLEN seco(YN A S4MMONS TMo.aAS A SCwwVTI noetet M. SoLomoss CHAmLES C. TPt.Avo.se ucMAth F. Mt ALT T
N$.
SCOTT A MA N
M';:"::'
"f."".'T *C.',"'"
sou,LO J s'Lv.t.RMAN tRNES,T C SAvhARO.8N DO8.A E.
Tu c cou us COWhMk Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ret Houston Lighting & Power Co., et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-4 9 9 (2. AMd db
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) has obtained 1/
and reviewed the January 26, 1988, Petition regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project (STP) filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206, and urges the Commission to deny it.
Section 2.206 provides an opportunity for persons to request the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Institute action pursuant to Section 2.202.
The GAP petition is not addressed to the Director, does not seek a remedy within the scope of Section 2.202 2/ and does not provide an adequate basis for the remedy GAP seeks.
Although the Commission could elect to construe the petition as addressed to its general discretion, the GAP petition is so patently devoid of merit that it should be summarily rejected.
l_/
The petition was not served on HL&P, and GAP refused HL&P's request for a copy.
A copy was obtained by con-tacting a media organization wh.ich had apparently been "timely served" by some party.
,2_/
The petition requests the Commission to delay its vote on full power authorization for STP Unit 1.
The Director does not have authority to order the commission not to vote on a matter.
8803160106 880200 h}
DR ADOCK O y8
NEwtuw C: H:l:1.Tz x:s::L R C.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary February 8, 1988 Page Two l
The petition contains only the most general allega-I tions regarding STP, and does not identify any specific al-legations which could constitute a basis for the relief it i
seeks. 3/
The GAP petition must also be evaluated in light of the orcanization's refusal to provide full information to the NRC and other forms of resistance to a proper investi-gation.
In view of the obdurate refusal to cooperate, which has continued for over a year, the organization is hardly in a position to criticize the Staff's handling of the allega-tions, let alone obtain the extraordinary relief it requests.
GAP's real target is the conduct of the NRC's in-vestigation; specifically that the Staff focused immediately on potentially safety-significant allegations and, in GAP's 1
view, reached judgments too quickly.
Prompt, safety-focused investigations are, however, consistent with, and indeed required by, Commission policy.
Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. 11,030 (Mar. 19, 1985).
GAP's grievance suggests that no investigation will be satis-i factory unless the results confirm the organization's preju-dices.
-3/
GAP's only specific complaint is that Mr. Corder, a l
source of over a hundred of the GAP allegations, when l
brought on site to point out his concerns, was taken i
into Unit 2, but for security reasons, was not taken into Unit 1.
Putting aside the fact that Unit 2 is essentially identical to Unit 1, Mr. Corder had previ-ously pointed out his concerns in Unit 1.
He has previ-ously toured Unit 1 with one of the NRC Senior Resident Inspectors for the purpose of pointing out his concerns.
He has also had separate tours of Unit 1 with members of the STP SAFETEAM as well as with members of the Bechtel Project Management staff for the same purpose.
His concerns have been thoroughly investigated.
The results j
of the SAFETEAM investigation were provided to the NRC in a report submitted to NRC Region IV on Janaury 28, 1987.
In addition, HL&P retained an independent expert from the Stone & Webster Engineering Company to review the HL&P investigation methodology and results, and the NBC Staff has also reviewed both the HL&P investiga-l tion records and the independent expert's report.
i
' NawwAx Q HsLTutwccc. R C.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary February 8, 1988 Page Three For all the foregoing reasons, the petition should be summarily rejected.
Respectfully submitted, 4
b JMt %
ack R. Newinan Attorney for Houston Lighting v
& Power Company, Project Mana-ger of the Soyth Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other applicants, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
[:MKC iG
'; &" C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g reg -g N) 35 In the Matter of
)
crFict. J a s i ""'
)
00CK[]INii.\\ Y. \\1U-08#"
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the letter to Samuel J. Chilk from Jack R. Newman, dated February 8, 1988, have been served on the following individual.s and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, or by arranging by messenger delivery as indicated by asterisk, this 8th day of February, 1988.
\\
Lando W.
Zech, Jr.,
Chairman
- Ms. Billie P.
Garde U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director of the Midwest Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Government Accountability Project 3424 North Marcos Lane Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard E.
Condit Government Accountability Project Commissioner Kenneth Rogers
- 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 202 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Commissioner Frederick M.
Bernthal*
William Paton*
U.S.
Nuc] car Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr*
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i d f '
<=
/
ek R.
New an
/
m i
..