ML20154B479

Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20154B479
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/28/1986
From:	Sinkin L, Sinking L CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., SINKIN, L.A.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-272 OL, NUDOCS 8603040317
Download: ML20154B479 (6)

Text

._

O ~

O

?CORRESPoggp i.

000KETED l

USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2/28/86 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P44 I

'86 W M #0 4 1

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFICE OF...

1 00CKEllNG A 2 2 l

In the Matter of

(

BRANCM

!l

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND

(

Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

)

50-499 OL j

(South Texas Project,

(

Units 1 and 2)

(

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC. (CCANP) l OESEQUSE 10 GEEb1CONIS' 00E100 EQB EBQ1EGIIVE QBQEB l

l On February 18,

1986, Applicants filed their Motion for 1

i I

Protective Order

(" Protective Order Motion").

In said

motion, Applicants seek a Board order directing that Applicants need not i

1

}

respond to CCANP's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants l

i dated February 4,

1986

(" Interrogatories"),

other than 1

Interrogatories 12(a),

(b),

and (c),

nor to CCANP's Second

(

j Request for Production of Documents dated February 4,

1986 J

(" Production Request"). Protective Order Motion at 1.

1 i

j The essence of Applicants' position is that CCANP is seeking t

i discovery on matters which are not relevant to the only remaining i

i natter subject to discovery in this proceeding - Issue F

- and that the discovery sought by CCANP is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and, therefore, l

should not be allowed.. id.

8603040317 860228 PDR ADOCK 05000498 Issue F states:

G PDR Will HL&P's Quality Assurance Program for Operation of 3

l the STP meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, l

Appendix B7 The matter CCANP seeks discovery on under Issue F is set out in CCANP's Answers to Applicants' Eighth Set of Interrogatories l

and Requests for Production dated February 12,

1986, Answers 4 I

and 5.

CCANP contends, in part, that Applicants' preferential handling of both members of the Operations Group implicated in the use and/or sale of drugs and of others who would have implicated members of the Operations Group in such sale and/or use demonstrates a lack of character.

Applicants respond that CCANP is creating a

'far-fetched relationship to Issue F that has no bounds."

Protective Order Motion at 9.

CCANP herein restates the relationship between the matter CCANP seeks discovery on and Issue F.

If Applicants have a

drug control program and if said program has procedures which are to be uniformly

applied, then any instance where certain individuals receive preferential treatment is questionable.

If those receiving preferential treatment are members of the Operations Group or people

who, if

punished, would implicate members of the Operations Group, then the questionable treatment relates directly to the operation of STNP.

Specifically, if the Operations Group receives special treatment at this point in time, the ASLB has a

basis for predicting such preferential treatment in the future.

Far from being "too remotely related to the implementation of the STP program during Plant operation," Egg Protective Order Motion at 10 - 11, this preferential treatment today creates an expectation of similar treatment in the future.

Furthermore, if the Operations Group and those who might implicate the Operations Group received preferential treatment to prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (either the Staff or this Daard) f rom learning about illegal drug use and/or sale in

i e

c F

f the Operations Group, then the allegation CCANP seeks discovery on is even more serious.

Such actions would serve as a predictor for the ASLB that Applicants will hide information about quality-related problems in the Operations Group from the NRC during operation of the Plant.

The Applicants seem to argue that illegal drug use and/or sale among the Operations Group personnel in not a

quality related problem under Appendix B.

Sgg gigt Protective Order Motion at 10.

But Applicants admit that the

" Nuclear Plant Operations Department is responsible f or plant production and i

f production support activities to ensure the safe, reliable and l

~

i efficient startup, operations, maintenance, and refueling of STP, 1

l including adherence to the operating license and technical specifications."

Applicants Answers and Objections to CCANP Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants dated February is,

1986, Answer 12(b).1/ This group is now undergoing training and writing procedures for operation. Affidavit of Jerrold G.

Dewease on the Progress of HLLP's preparation for Operation of STP Since

1982, dated February 14, 1986 at 7 - 10.

All of the key staff positions, except one, are already filled.

Id..at 11.

CCANP contends that the use and/or sale of illegal drugs by this Group is a

condition adverse to quality and that Applicants' preferential treatment of the Group constitutes a failure to take prompt corrective action.

Sgg 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B,

Criterion XVI. It is precisely f or this reason that the Of fice of t/Dased on the Affidavit of Jerrold G.

Dewease on the Progress of HLLP's preparation for Operation of STP Since

1982, dated February 14,

1986, Figure 1, the Operations Group also includes Nuclear Security and Nuclear Training. Sgg ging Id. at 3. item 5.

3

i Investigation agreed to investigate this allegation when generally drug abuse investigations are not considered part of their jurisdiction.

To reiterate CCANP's

position, if the allegation of preferential treatment is true, then the answer to Issue F is "No" because Applicants have failed to promptly correct a

condition adverse to quality and directly linked to the operation of STNP.

Furthermore, if the preferential treatment can be shown l

to result from a decision to protect the Operations Group from NRC scrutiny, then the matter is raised to the character level.

The Applicants' argument that the Commission is engaged in rulemaking en the drug issue

and, therefore, the ASLB is precluded from engaging in an inquiry into CCANP's allegation is irrelevant.

Protective Order Motion at 5 - 8.

The C6m.ftssion is hardly formulating a rule regarding whether certain employees can be given preferential treatment when found to be using and/or selling drugs or whether such preferential treatment can be given in order to protect permit or license', holders from adverse regulatory action.

In

addition, while Applicants counsel may argue that this matter is not within the purview of Issue F, an argument refuted

above, Quality Assurance for Operations is not so far removed i

from the performance of the Operations group as to place such a

j matter outside the bounds of the UgQMlC2 rule.

4 Regarding the specific objections to CCANP's Interrogatories and Production Request noted in Applicants' Protective Order

Motion, Seg Protective Order Motion at 11, note 11, CCANP addresses these objections in the accompanying CCANP Motion to 4

)

Compel.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Applicants Motion for Protective Order dated February 18, 1986 and instruct Applicants to answer CCANP's Interrogatories and Production Request subject only to the resolution of CCANP's accompanying Motion to Compel.

Respectfully submitted, d"

l Lanny Alan Sinkin Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.

20002 (202) 797-8106 l

Counsel for Intervenor, Citi: ens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc.

Dated: February 28, 1986 l

Washington, D.C.

l l

l 1

l 5

a

a...

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m @ M V.NDENrf DEFORE THC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEf4 SING DOARD In the Matter of

(

OpEp v iW y

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND

(

Docl:et i;c s.

50-490 OL t144 POWER CONPANY, ET AL.

)

50H99 OL 86 5 31 A10:45 (South Tenas Project,

(

Units 1 and 2)

(

FF M GEBIIEIGGIE DE SE6VIGE

[djg,i"'hI I

hereby certify that copion of CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR

POWER, INC.

(CCANP) RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER were served by mencenger

(*)

or by deposit in the U.S.

Mai1, f1 rut c1aus pactage paid ta the fallowing individuals end entities on the 20th day of February 1936.

Charles E+chhoefer. Erquire Drian Derwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.

Atomic Safety and Licencing Daard State of Tenes U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Wathington, D.C.

20555 P.

O.

Do1 12543, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Tonac 7C711 Dr. James C.

La n.b. III Adminl utrati ve Judge Ortste Rute P2r4o, Enquire

~.13 Woodha.'un Foad Office of tne Enec. Log. Dir.

Chc. pol Hs11, North Carolinn 27514 U.S.

Nuc1cor F.egulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Fr ed ci-i c i J.

Shan Adminittrative Judge J o c i. R.

Newmon, Ecquire U.

G.

Iloclear F< eg u l e t er y Commi nst on it15 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 llachington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

2On36 Melbert Schware, Esquire Dai:er end E*otts Mrn. Foggy Ducharn 300 One Choll Pla:a Enecutive Director, C.E.U.

Houston, Tenes 77000 Route 1,

Doa 1634 l

Dre:oria, Tenas 77422 Atomic Ecf ety cnd Lic. Dd.

U.S.

Nuclear Reguletary Comm.

Diano Curron, Cuquire Nonhinoton, D.C.

20555 Harmon, Wesen

?- Jordon 2001 3 Street, N.W.,

Gunte 40 Atomic Caf ety and Licencing Washington.

D.C.

20007 Appeal Daard U.C.

Nucione Regulatcry Comm.

Pat Coy Washington, D.C.

2055G 5106 Cana Oro San Antonio, Tenan 70230 Docteting and Service Co: tion Office of the Cecentary Ray Goldstein U.S.

Nuclear Regul.atory Comm.

i Grey <nd 1/ecl er Wachington, D.C.

20G55 901 Vaughn D1dg.

C07 Drn:oc Aun ti n,dJbis Ton 70701

'le Lonnyhiniin

.