ML20032E356
| ML20032E356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111200458 | |
| Download: ML20032E356 (3) | |
Text
.
4 4
1 00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA 81 NOV 19 A959 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0 CJ SECRETARY
- 1. 'TEiiNG & SERVICE M NCH Before Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman SERVEDNOV Dr. James C. Lamb 3
1987 9
Mr. Ernest E. Hill
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-499 OL
)
m (South Texas Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
November 18, 1981
/[{y 0
\\\\
)
AYOyj 9
IO8/Ahj MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing as Moot CEU's Motion
%s,D%,
to Suspend Construction)
T i[Gd On October 28, lES1, Citizens for Equitable Utilities (CEU) i fed a Motion to Suspend Construction of the South Texas Project. This motion was a companion to the Petition to Suspend Construction which CEV filed tne same day with the' Commission.
The motion incorporated the substantive grounds proferred in the petition and added a discussion of the basis upon which CEV claims we have jurisdi'ction to grant the relief requested.
l On October 30, 1981, the Applicants filed a response in opposition to the CEV motion, on the grounds that (1) we do not have jurisdiction to grant CEU's requested relief; or, (2) in any event, that we should not act during the pendency of CEU's petition.before the Commission.
On November 13, 1981, the NRC Staff filed its response, which opposed CEU's motion on grounds k
~
hh 8111200458 Billig gDRADOCK 05000498 PDR
o 2_
similar to those advanced by the Applicants and, in addition' on the basis that the motion had become moot.
For the reasons which follow, we agree with this last position and decline to express any opinion on the other jurisdictional and policy grounds advanced by the Applicants and Staff, on the one hand, and CEU on the other.
CEU's motion was based on its concern about safety-related construction activities being carried on prior to a complete investigation of potential design engineering problems identified in a recently released report prepared for the Applicants by Quadrex Corporation We too had some concerns in this regard, insofar as the design problems might have a bearing on the adequacy of certain naar-term construction activities, as defined in a letter dated October 16, 1981 from the Applicants to Region IV, NRC.
Reflecting both those concerns and the forthcoming transition of design engineering and construction management activities f,om Brown & Root to Bechtel Corp., but entirely apart from CEU's motion or petition, on October 30, 1981 we scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 8-10,1981 to consider means for assuring the quality of planned safety-related construction activities during the transition period.
See Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Prehearing Conference and Evidentiary Hearing on Transition Period Construction Activities), LBP-81-54,14 NRC Subsequently, hevever, we were advised that Brown & Root was going to withdraw as construction contractor and, as a resul.t, the near-term work activities which had been specified in the October 16, 1981 letter to Region IV would not be undertaken in the near future and that the only safety-related work to be performed during the next six months would be
o o
maintenance and materials handling activities as specified in a letter dated November 9,1981 from the Applicants to Region IV. We therefore cancelled the December 8-10, 1981 hearing on near tern transition-period construction activities.
Memorandum and Order dated November 13, 1981.
On the basis of that same revised and reduced scope of work. as described in the November 9 letter, CEU on November 12, 1981 sought permission to withdraw without prejudice its petition to suspend construction which is pending before the Commission.
In doing so it represented that the Applicants and NRC Staff have no objection to the withdrawal.
Because the construction activities at which the motion to suspend construction is directed are not to be undertaken for the foreseeable future, and because CEU is seeking (without objection) to withdraw the petition which forms the substantive basis for the motion, we agree with the Staff that the motion before us has become moot.
In these circumstances, we need not, and do not, express any opinion on the jurisdictional and policy questions raised by the Applicants, NRC Staff and CEU.
Accordingly, it is, this 18th day of November,1981 ORDERED That CEU's Motion to Suspend Construction be, and it hereby is, dismissed as moot.
~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD altw hooY op v
CharlesBechhoefer,Cha1}pman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryl and.
-