ML20032B369
| ML20032B369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Newman J AUSTIN, TX, CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, SAN ANTONIO, TX |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111050478 | |
| Download: ML20032B369 (7) | |
Text
_
't n 00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'81 NOV -2 P4:13 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD orFICE OF SECRETARY 00CKETiNG & SEfN!CE In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL p
/
O (South Texas Project,
)
6 pFj Units 1 and 2)
)
{
\\
E NOVO 41981 -
Applicants'.?esponse to CEU O u.s.uucun uawoer Motion To Suspend Construction p'
coussa Di 0
Applicants submit d.1-Response to a Motion filed wit the Board by Citizer s for Equitable Utilities (CEU) on October 28, 1981, requesting the Board to issue an oro halting all constrtution at the STP site pending an independent review of plant design and "further adjudicatory hearings."
CEU's Motion is based entirely upon arguments presented to the Commission in it.= " Petition To Suspend Construction" filed on the same day.
Thus, CEU requests an Order from the Licensing Board in this operating license proceeding, suspending construction at the STP site, while it i
simultaneously awaits a ruling from the Commission on the l
same request.
This Licensing Board does not have jurisdiction to grant DSO3 l
CEU's requested relief.
The law is clear that licensing boards have only such jurisdiction and authority as is conferred upon them by the Commission, Public Service Company I
0111050478 811030 i
DR ADOCK 05000498 PDR l
- . 4 4 of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976), and this' Board was established by the Commission for the sole and specific purpose of detE rmining whether an operating license should be issued for the South Texas Project.
(43 Fed. Reg. 33968 (1978)).
The Board has no delegation to consider suspending the construction permit for this plant.
(p3.)
CEU relies upon a statement in Houston Lightinq & Pcwer Co. (South Texas Project), CLI-80-32,12 NRC 281, 291 (1980) as the bar s for its request to the Board.
CEU's reliance is 1/
misplaced, and its position is without merit.
That statement, i
cited out of context, neither implicitly nor explicitly supports CEU's assertion that "the Commission recognized that this Board might find it necessary not only to deny an operating license, but also to revoke the construction l
permit if justified by the evidence."
The Commission l
expressed no such recognition.
l In CLI-80-32, this Board was directed by the Commission to segregate a portion of its operating license review and to determine in an expedited hearing whether, in light of 1/
In the cited statement, the Commission noted that ab-dication of responsibility or knowledge could form a basis for revoking a license or denying a license application.
Obviously, the statement was part of the Commission's direction to this Board as to the standards that might be applied in ruling upon the issuance of an operating license - in no way can it be read as an ex-pansion of the scope of the Board's delegated authority.
l l
m
'e 4 '.
certain specific QA/QC problems in construction, HL&P has the requisite " competence and character" to receive an operat-ing license.
Noting that this Board had already decided to expedite consideration of these matters, the Commission directed
. that the Licensing Board in the operating license proceeding should proceed with its expedited hearing on the quality control-related issues (including the illegat. ions of false stater;.ents in the FSAR).
As the Board has already determined to proceed in thic manner, no formal order is necessary.
However, we expect the Board to look at the broader ramifications of these charges in order to determine whether, if proved, they should result in denial of the operating license application.
For this reason, we are ordering the Board to issue an early and separate decision on this aspect of the operating license p.roceeding.
(12 NRC at 291-92 (emphasis added).)
In foct, the Commission explicitly denied the intervenors' assertion that a separate hearing to consider whether "early revocation of the construction permit" was necessary because of the limited relief available from the Board in an operating license proceeding.
(12 NRC l
at 289).
The Commission's Order is consistent with NRC practice which contemplates that relief of the type now requested by CEU from j
this Board must be sought by petition addressed to the appro-f priate NRC official pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206(b), for it is the
Staff's responsibility to oversee compliance with licenses once issued.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, (Sea brook Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513, 8 NRC 694, 696 (1978);
Duquesne Light Company, (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-408, 5 NRC 1383, 1386 and n.6 (1977); see also, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-356, 4 NRC 525, 535-36 (1976).
Morr over, this same matter having been brought to the Commission, it should not be considered by the Board.
It would be inappropriate for this Board to rule on a request where, as here, a ruling is likely to place the Board in direct conflict with the wishes of the commission.
Should the Com-mission deny the relief sought, a ruling by the Board to the contrary would ce dull and void.
If on the other hand, not-withs tanding Applicants' forthcoming response, the Commission grants CEU's petition, it is likely to do so for reasons and under conditions that it deems proper, and any similar ruling by this Board would be moot and of no consequence.
HL&P plans to submit a response to CEU's petiticn filed with the Commission in the near future.
That response will include a discussion of the Quadrex Report, (the sole basis for the relief requested) placing its findings in appropriate perspective.
In addition, HL&P will explain that an indepen-dent review of all STP engineering and design, including the matters addressed in the Quadrex Report, is already underway l
..,.,,y and that the NRC Staff is considering the extent to which con--
struction work should be permitted to proceed pending comple-tion of the. engineering ind design review.
For these reasons, we are confident that the Commission will reject CEU's petition.
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should reject CEU's motion; consideration of it would be inappropriate and would serve no useful purpose.
Respectfully submitted, fh ack u. NewMan Maurice Axelrad Alvin H. Gutterman 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 Finis E. Cowan Thomas B. Hudson, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Dated:
October 30, 1981 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS of the South Texas Project act-
& AXELRAD ing herein on behalf of itself
' 2 ~e 7 Connecticut Ave., NW and the other Applicants, THE Washington, D.C.
20036 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City i
Public Service Board of the City BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER Houston, TX 77002 AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project.
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Response to CEU Motion to Suspend Construction dated October 30, 1981, have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or hand delivered as indicated by asterisk, on this 30th day of October, 1981.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.*
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.*
313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
I Washington, D.C.
20006 Ernest E. Hill l
Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-123 Citizens Concerned About l
Livermore, CA 94550 Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro l
Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, T;;
78233 1
Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin Utilities, Inc.
2207-D Nueces l
Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, TX 78705 l
Brazoria, TX 77422 l
l L
Joy M. Gutierrez, Esq.
- Paul B. Cotter, Jr.*
l Office of the Executive Chairman Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtun, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc mmission Washington, D.C.
20555
, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l l
-