ML20151W874

Memorandum & Order Directing Applicants,Staff & Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc to File Positions Re Fourth Motion to Reopen Phase II Record by 860221

ML20151W874
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/07/1986
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#186-049, CON-#186-49 79-421-07-OL, 79-421-7-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8602120203
Download: ML20151W874 (4)

Text

' .pQ ~

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00gERC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *86 FEB 10 P3 :18 Before Administrative Judges CharlE3 Bechhoefer, Chairman [0CkET kG S PNf.

Dr. James C. Lamb BRANCH Frederick J. Shon SERVED FEB 101986

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL

) STN 50-499 OL HOUSTON LIGHTING AND )

POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) ASLBP No. 79-421-07 OL

)

(South Texas Project )

Units 1 and 2) ) February 7, 1986

)

MEMORANDUM AND.0RDER (Additional Information Required to Resolve CCANP Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:IV)

On January 17, 1986, CCANP filed its fourth motion to reopen the Phase II record (Motion:IV). On February 3 and 6,1986, the Applicants and Staff, respectively, filed.their responses. Upon review of the papers filed to date, the Board has determined that it needs further information in order properly to rule on the motion.-

1. Along with their response, the Applicants furnished letters

! from CCANP to their counsel, as well as the Applicants' response to those letters. (The letters from CCANP had not previously been furnished to the Board.) These letters bear upon CCANP's motive for

[

! filing the motion. For example, if CCANP is attempting to utilize l

threats of criminal sanctions against various individuals, or complaints to the bar association concerning Applicants' attorney (s), to achieve a 8602120203 e60207 PDR ADOCK 05000490 O PDR j

l

[ _

DSoz)

2' result in this proceeding, that course of action would represent conduct inconsistent with standards'of " honor, dignity, and decorum" expected of the representatives of parties.before us. See 10 CFR 9 2.713(a). In particular, if CCANP believes that formal criminal charges should be filed with the Department of Justice, it is manifestly improper for it to condition such filing upon whether or not it obtains some measure of the relief it seeks in this proceeding.

CCANP is directed to show cause why we should not impose sanctions for the letters in question. Such sanctions would range from striking the motion to the various forms of sanctions contemplated by 10 CFR 9 2.713(c).

CCANP should file its response to this direction by Friday, February 21, 1986.

2. The issues before us in Phase II (and/or Phase III) include questions concerning the Applicants' character and competence to complete construction of and operate the STP (Issues B, C, D, and/or F).

All of these issues stem from the Commission's ruling in CLI-80-32,-12 NRC 281 (1980).

Amona tiie material filed by CCANP in support of its Motion:IV 1s a

> ~

l deposition which suggested that an HL&P engineer (not further identified) advised a B&R official that he (the engineer) would not attend a certain briefing of B&R by Quadrex Corporation because he did not wish to become aware of information which might require reporting to NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.55(e).

f i

l l

I L . _ _ _ _ _

3 Although CCANP advanced this information as part of a motion to reopen the record as to HL&P's handling of the Quadrex Report (Contention 9 and/or 10), it appears to us to be equally relevant to HL&P's character and competence to complete construction of STP. If the individual in question were to remain with the company when STP is in operation, the statement might also bear upon HL&P's character and competence to operate the STP. If accurate, the information would suggest the impropriety of allowing the HL&P engineer (and possibly any supervisor, management official, or associate with knowledge of the statement) to part'icipate further in safety-related aspects of the STP.

The responses of the Applicants and Staff do not adequately respond to the questions outlined above. They focus on the content of the Quadrex-B&R meeting and its similarity in scope to a meeting held the previous day between HL&P officials and Quadrex. If the HL&P engineer had used such reasons as a basis for not attending the B&R-Quadrex meeting, we would have no reason to raise questions about the attitude of the HL&P engineer.

But that apparently is not the situation. Irrespective of any l

J l

decision we may reach regarding the CCANP motion, we call upon the

. Applicants and Staff (and CCANP if it wishes) for suggestions for resolution of the issue we have outlined. The positions taken by the f

i Applicants and Staff in their responses do not adequately respond to the question of the attitude of the HL&P engineer.

In our view, before we close this issue, the record must reflect at I least (1) the exact content and nature of the statement by the HL&P i

l l

l l

l.

6

\.

7 4

engineer; (2) the identity of the HL&P engineer who made the statement

~

in question (whatever its precise content); (3) prior and after-the-fact

' knowledge of the statement by the engineer's supervisor (s), associates or other management officials; and (4) the engineer's current and projected position on the STP (if applicable).

The positions of the Applicants and Staff (and CCANP if it wishes) should be filed by Friday, February 21, 1986.

IT IS S0-0RDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3Sw ber &J Criarles Bechhoefer, Chairgan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE #

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of February, 1986 i

l l

L _ _ . _ - . _ ,_