ML20011A811

Motion to Suspend Const. Design Review of Brown & Root Engineering Work for South Tx Project Rept Raises Serious Issues & Demonstrates Continued Const Would Be Detrimental to Safety of Project

ML20011A811
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	10/28/1981
From:	Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8111030242
Download: ML20011A811 (4)

Text

-

p 1 ,,

, J. , UNITED STATES OF AMMRICA GED 0

HRC BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g 30 P2M

)

In the Matter of )

0FFtCE g6 fChE g 1C

) 00CKE AHCH HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50 9 clc (South Texas Projects, Units 1 ) 50- ,

and 2 ) (,% . l

) yJ

) [k A h NOVO 2199gw 1

t /w6auau. commas %see ,

CITIZENSFOREQUITABLEUTILITIES'\

MOTION TO sus'tFND CONSTRUCTION , @

By letter of September 28, 3 %1, llouston Lighting a Power Company ( "HL&P ") revealed to the Board and the Intervenors the nistence of the Quadrex Report, " Design Review of B&R Engineering Work for the South Texas Projec .," which IIL&P had apparently received in May of 1981, some five months earlier.

l The Quadrex Report itself, which Citizens for Equitable i

Utilities obtained socn af ter the llL&P letter , is an extraordinary indictment of both tha Brown and Root desig : of the South Texas Project, and by necessary implication , of HL&P's failure to discover the serious design flaws sometime in the previous eight years of the project.

The Quadrex Report raises a large number of very serious issues, many of which CEU expects to refine into contentions to be considered in the operating license proceeding. More importantly, however, the Quadrex Report demonstrates that contiaued construction would be detrimental to the safety of gM the Sou th Texas Project and could preclude the development of E a new design that comp 1fes with NRC requirements and assures th safety of the facility.

8111030242 811028 PDR ADOCK 05000498 .

O PDR ,

m-

. +

j.,

CEU has raised these matters with the-Commission itself in the attached Petition to Suspend Construction of the South Texas Project. .In that petition CEULasks the Commission.to suspend construction pending the resolution of basic issues f

concerning . the STP design . In - so doing , We have asked the Commission to refer all issues to this Board for - consideration .

At the same time, we believe the Boar d - has the-jurisdiction to take immediate action on a request 1to suspend construction and i is in the best position to doLso since it is intimately f amiliar with developments at the project to date.

Accordingly, CEU moves that the Board' order all construction at the South Texas Project halted immediately pending an independent review of the design and f urther adjudicatory' hearings, as f

requested in Paragraph 39 of our Petition to the Commission.

The substantive arguments in support of this motion are-' contained ,

in the Petition rather than included as a separate argument'in i

• this motion .

The Boar d 's jurisdiction to consider this Motion stems i

directly from the Commission 's Order instituting this proceeding ,

Houston Lighting und Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),

CLI -8 0- 32 , 12 NRC 281 (1980). In that order.the Commiasion directed the board to consider allegations related to the adequacy f

of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control program and other issues central to the safety of ongoing construction. Recognizing ,

that it is important to resolve these issues well before construc-tion is completed, the . commission ordered th at these matters be i

considered on an expedited basis.

2 .

)

=

In so doing, the Commission stated, Either abdication of responsibility or abdication of knowledge, whether at the construction or operating phase, could form an independent and sufficient basis.

for revoking a license or denying a -

license application on grounds of lack of competence (i.e., technical) or character qualificatien on the part of the. licensee or license applicant.

Id . , at 291. Thus, the Commission recognized that this Board might find it necessary not only to deny an operating license, but to revoke the construction permit if justified by the evidence.

Indeest, the very requirement that this phase of the hearing be expedited demands the conclusion that this Board has jurisdic-tion to take whatever actions may be necessary to assure the safety of the Sou th Texas Project, including suspending construction .

If the result of a first phase were to f avor liL&P, there would be-no particular reason that it should not be part of a single operating license proceeding. Ilowever , if a first phase might result in a holding against !!L&P , suspe*,1sion of construction would clearly be the result since HL&P would have been shown to be incapable of constructing a nuclear power plant. Accordingly, whatever the merits of the case, this Board clearly has the jurisdiction to consider this Motion to Suspend Construction.

We urge it to do so forthwith.

3 ,

Respectfully submitted,

. .-. ..- 'G /

William S. fordan, III IIAR.10N & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Wash ing ton , D.C 20006 Dated: ctober 28, 1981 l

l l

I l

4 i

l

_ - . . . ,