ML20153E859
| ML20153E859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1986 |
| From: | Axelrod M HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, John Lamb, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153E863 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-171 OL, NUDOCS 8602250179 | |
| Download: ML20153E859 (4) | |
Text
/7/
1 c
NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER R C.
O o
1615 L STR E ET, N.W.
JACK R NEwMAN WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 w'LuAM t eAtp.JR JOMM E. MOLTriNGEN. sm C
DOUGLAS L SERESFORD MAmOLD F REIS SARSARA A DUNCOMBE MaumCE ARELRAD 2O2 955 66OO JANET E B ECRER J & DOURNTMT,JR MTRLE w FALLON e
STEVf N P FRANT2 MULM.RECK goj Ct0RGE L EDGAR 798 s
- DOROTHY P GAY OLETMLEEN M SME A DRIANR GISH DAv6D G. POWELL JBLL t. GRANT DOv0LAS O G"55"
""'^C"'
0FFICr or <i eLAROL LYM h(WM AN t r.(,h; ALISON LeMASTER 6
00CHEImb A w m a' u,.
JOMN T. STOUGM. JR rRaNa R uMDM Syg JAMES a vA$iLE REVIN J LIPSON M'CMA(L A SACSIR david R RASisiN ALVIN M. GUTTERMAN JANEe NYAN
.Ev.N P G'"'"
Februarv 21 1986 d5'""*"
I JACOLYN A SIMMONS TMOMAS A SCMMUTZ 4
M'CMAEL F. MC ALY ROBERT M. SOLOMON ROBERT 4 WMiTE JO$tPM E. Stub 85 SCOT 7 A. MARMAN RewnT LowrNSTriN NORMAN A. FLANINGAM Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire
~ ' " '
Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Houston Lighting & Power Co., et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-498 OL, 50-499 OL
Dear Members of the Board:
In its Memorandum and Order of February 7, 1986, the Board referred to an excerpt from a deposition attached to CCANP's January 17, 1986 motion to reopen the Phase II proceeding.
The Board indicated that the material suggested that an HL&P engineer advised a B&R official that he would not attend a briefing by Quadrex of B&R because he did not wish to become aware of information which might require reporting to NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e).
The Board expressed concern as to whether this material might bear upon HL&P's character and competence to complete construc-tion of STP or to operate the STP.
It asked Applicants and the Staff for suggestions for resolution of the issue.
8602250179 960221 ~
PDR ADOCK 05000498' G
\\So3
r
- NawwAx & Hrt.Tzrx:ar, P. C.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. James C. Lamb, III l
Frederick J. Shon Page Two February 21, 1986 The material referred to by the Board appeared at pages 613-14 of the deposition of Mr. Eugene A.
Saltarelli of B&R in.another legal proceeding and consists of his description of a conversation with an HL&P licensing engi-neer.
Like many other materials that have been attached to CCANP's motions to reopen or otherwise sought to be introduced by CCANP, this isolated excerpt does not provide any meaningful insight as to whether the statement repre-sented a complete explanation by the speaker of the reasons for his actions.
We believe this is demonstrated clearly in the enclosed affidavit of Mr. Cloin G. Robertson, who was HL&P's Manager of Licensing at that time and believes he is the HL&P engineer referred to in Mr. Saltarelli's deposition.
Mr. Robertson's affidavit states that he decided that HL&P licensing engineers would not attend the May 1, 1981 briefing of B&R (Robertson Affidavit at 13), and explains the reasons for his decision (J at 115-7).
Since HL&P would obtain the same briefing from Quadr 2x the previous day, he saw no need for HL&P to attend the briefing of B&R on May 1.
He had no concern that HL&P's absence from the briefing of B&R would result in any failure to inform the NRC of any reportable item, since any informa-tion in the Quadrex presentation would be received by HL&P the previous day and acted on appropriately, and any infor-mation received by B&R would be acted on by B&R in accordance with its orderly process applicable to the review and analy-sis of such information, regardless of source.
Id. at 15.
As a former employee of an A/E, Mr. Robertson was concerned that HL&P's attendance might inhibit full and free discussion of problem areas between Quadrex and.B&R.
Jf. at 16.
Part of his motivation was also a concern, apparently expressed to Mr. Saltarelli, that exchanges between Quadrex and B&R might lead HL&P to consider imme-diately undertaking a 24-hour review for reportability under 10 C.F.R. S 50.55(e).
Mr. Robertson explains that the reason for his concern was that it would, in effect, "short circuit" the existing orderly process at STP providing for the A/E's careful consideration and analysis of informa-tion that came to its attention before initiating HL&P's 24-hour review.
]:d. at 17.
Ea.
NewwAw & Hes.Tztwoma. P. C.
j.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Frederick'J. Shon l
. Page Three j
February 21, 1986 i
l As.Mr.'Robertson acknowledges, it is apparent from Mr. Saltarelli's deposition that Mr. Robertson conveyed to him only his concern about HL&P's immediate undertaking i
of reportability reviews, and that, even in that connection, l
he did not communicate all of h'is reasoning.
Id. at 18.
Mr..Robertson's affidavit makes clear that his decision j
was based on several considerations, satisfactorily explains l
the basis for the particular concern that he expressed to Mr. Saltarelli, and shows that his-decision was made in good faith without any intent of avoiding HL&P's reporting-responsibilities.
In view of the ample record developed in this proceeding regarding HL&P's meticulous attention to its reporting i
responsibilities.under 10 C.F.R.
S 50.55(e); */ the fact that the May 1, 1981 briefing of'B&R took place the day.
after a similar briefing of HL&P; **/ and'HL&P's conduct of a reportability review-immediately upon receipt of the final Quadrex Report (within a week after the May-l briefing),
l there is little reason to construe Mr. Robertson's remarks, especially in light of his affidavit, as reflecting adversely l
- /
For example, in Phase I the NRC Resident Reactor Inspec-*
[
tor from September 1979 to January 1982~("RRI") testi-t fied that HL&P's " record of identifying and reporting-construction deficiencies, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) was open and honest, and probably was better i
i than any other utility that I've been at."
Tr. 9855 l-(Phillips).
To similar effect are Tr.- 10068-69 (Phil-L lips); Tr. 10067-68 (Crossman); I&E Report 81-07 (Staff Exh. 92) at 10; SALP Report for 7/80-6/81 (Staff Exh.
133) at 6.
In Phase II the same former RRI testified that HL&P 4
was " forthright in identifying deficiencies to the NRC" and that it " reported a large number of.deficien-l
'cies, when it.could have taken a more conservative approach, and reported fewer."
Phillips, ff. Tr.
15116, at 3.
- /
The record reflects not only that Quadrex'provided l-similar briefings of HL&P and B&R on consecutive days (e.g.,
Goldberg,.ff. 11491 at.12; Tr..ll727 (Goldberg),
Tr. 13163 (Stanley)), but also,that-HL&P was not present at the briefing of B&R (Tr. 13164'(Stanley)).
a 6
-p er y
rrw w+uma w er-g vg eSF M'TF
~~Wv*
TT"'T
- "EWV F
T'-M*$t-"f*-7"*T F#
- - f f-T*1
- 7*T+"'PT9C'-P*F""-'""y"P p
y "f*-9'f*#P-F*"'*'j
n-NwwAN & HrLTztwaar. R C.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Dr. James C. Lamb, III Frederick J. Shon Page Four February 21, 1986 either on his motivation or on the character and competence of HL&P.
Accordingly, the material provided by CCANP would not alter the result that the Board would otherwise reach concerning these issues and therefore no further action is required.
Respectfully submitted, n
Jack R.
Newman 8
Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman Donald J. Silverman 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Encl.:
Affidavit of Cloin G.
Robertson Finis E.
Cowan 3000 One Shell Plaza cc:
Service List Houston, Texas 77002 Dated:
February 21, 1986 NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING 1615 L Street, N.W.
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager Washington, D.C.
20036 of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and BAKER & BOTTS the other Applicants, THE CITY 3000 One Shell Plaza OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by Houston, TX 77002 and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 1