ML20205K615

NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205K615
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/21/1986
From:	Pirfo O NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-226 OL, NUDOCS 8602270591
Download: ML20205K615 (5)

Text

,

'n

• 4- February 21, lg USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N g 26 N0:12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f flCE 0 W c. [Cd' '

BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOAR CKElg!gy In the Matter of' )

)

I!OUSTON LIGIITING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 g COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499

)

(South Texas Project Units 1 & 2) )

t

!!RC STAFF'S POSITION IN RESPONSE TO TIIE LICENSING BOARD'S P!EMORANDIIP! AND ORDER OF FEBRUAPY 7,1986 REOUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATIOff On January 17, 1986, the Intervonor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. (CCANP), moved ge,r alla to reopen agrain the Phase 11 rceord in this proceedinrr (hereinafter " Motion IV). The ' Applicants and the NRC Staff each opposed this motion.

Upon review of these filings by the parties, the Licensing Board determined that it needed further information in order tb rule properly on the motion. Memorandum and Order (Additional Information it'equired to Resolve CCAMP Motion to Reopen Phase II Record: IV)', 'q issued

t. ,

February 7,1986, at 2. In that Order, the Board called ttpon the Staff and Applicant to state their positions with respect to "the question of the attitude of the [ unidentified) lihaP engineer" referred ' o in the Saltarelli deposition testimony submitted with CCANP's motion to reopen. See Motion IV, Document 1 at 613-615.

The Staff is without specific knowledge as to the particular factual information the Board seeks to reach on this matter (eli , the identity or k, s hi"*I882A8t88fa,. L, ~

O PDR t gg f

. exact content and nature of the HL&P engineer's statement with regard to HL&P attendance at the April 1981 briefing).

The Staff reiterates its position that the statement purportedly made

-- is not germane to the issue to be decided regarding the reportability of the Quadrcx findings under 10 C.F.R. 50.55(c) or to IIL&P's character or competence. As stated in our previous response to the CCAMP motion, the Applicant was not insulating itself from finding out about reportable deficiencies at the STP; rather, !!L&P was maldng preparations to report these deficiencies to the NRC. IIL&P had itself commissioned the Quadrex Report . The relevant considerations in this proceeding are not what Mr. Ecltarelli believed , but how IILaP performed or failed to perform its duties under the NRC regulatione, including its duty to submit 10 C.P.R.

I Sn.55(c) reports.

In contrast to the clear evidence in the record regarding IIL&P's actions to gather information on potentially reportable matters in the Ouadrex Report in mid-April 1981, Mr. Saltarelli's statement dealing with why llL&P did not attend nuadrex's briefing of B rown & Root is perticularly unclear. HL&P had been briefed on the Quadrex findings the day before. Yet Mr. Saltarelli says that the reason llL&P did not attend the Ouadrex briefing of Brown & Root is "that the I!L&P licensing engineer felt that IJL&P should not be present in the event that if [ sic]

there were any findings that were reportable, they would be under the obligation to go report them within twenty-four hours and they wouldn't have had all the information out, or he gave some story like that which I didn't u nderst and . Saltarclli deposition at 614. Thir statement is

f

(,

0 .hardly probative of what night have been said, who said it, or the truth of a " story" that f.fr. Saltarelli odmittedly did not understand. I-As stated in the Staff's previous submissions, there are no grounds e for reopening the Phase II record en 'the grounds of Mr. Saltarelli's statement. Moreover, the factual information sought by the Board is unlikely to signi!1cantly affect the outcome of this proceeding considering the vast weight of evidence already in the record.

Respectfully submitted, Q A, 14Fo Oreste Russ Pirfo Counsel for NRC Staff f

Dated at Dethesda, Pfaryland this day of February,1966 '

1

-1/ It shculd be noted that even if the recollection of T.fr. Saltarelli could have formed the basis for relevant and material testimony on thic matter at the Phase it hearing, CCANP -- for whatever reasons

-- did not choose to address such testimory at that hearing. Now, months after the close of the record, CCAMP seeks the opportunity to mount a case. The showing of materiality and relevance, in and i of itccif, is insufficient to compel reopening of the record in this or any case. As the Board is well aware, the standards to reopen are  !

more demanding. Any newly proffered testimony or material must, of course, not only be relevant and material, but it must he likely to change the outcome, or, in this case, seriously call into question the overwhelming (and mainly uncontested) evidence that is already of record. See Louisiana Powcr & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), C LI-8 6-1, 23 NRC (January 30, 1986, slip op, at 4-6). Similarly, as Board may not reopen a record to obtain further information except in the presence of specific facts indicating that there is a serious safety, environmental or common defense and security matter present. See M. at 8.

t

6 w

DOLMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'86 FEB 26 40:12 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFflLE J a .u .a ,

00cMErmu . 5;.Wm~

BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

l'OUSTON LIGIITING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498 COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics o' "NRC STAFF'S POSITION IN RESPONSE TO Tile LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF FEBRUARY 7,1986 REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuc! car Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 21st day of February,1986.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. , Chairman

• Administrative Judge Brian Berwick, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb III Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq.

313 Woodhaven Road Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Chapel flill, NC 27514 1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Panel Executive Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Washington, DC 20555 Inc .

Route 1, Box 1684 Melbert Schwarz, Jr. , Esq. Brazoria, TX 7744?

Baker and Botts One Shell Plaza flouston, TX 77002 Lanny Alan Sinkin Counsel for Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.

1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002

o

'f Fim Eastman, Co-coordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Barbara A. Miller Panel

• Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 Power 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Antonio, TX 78233 Board Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ray Goldstein, Esq.

Gray, Allison a Becker 1001 Vaughn Bldg.

807 Brazos Austin, TX 78701 Docl:eting and Service Section*

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t.'ashington , D.C. 20555 Y

~

Edwin J. eis ' /

Assistan Chief Ilearing Counsel i