ML19256A358
| ML19256A358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1978 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901050074 | |
| Download: ML19256A358 (4) | |
Text
~
NRO PUBLIC DOCUMENr ROOM e.
9 U::ITED STATES OF A'.ZRICA
- CCLEI.R RZGULATORY CD:JIISSIC';
ATO:"IC S AFETY A.iD LICE;iEI::G APPEAL 30A2D At g
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
.#.g$o yh Dr. John II. Euck A
b, % g h
'Cg blichael C.
Farrar 2
s g,..
c&sY
)
'b In the :*atter of
)
/
O
)
PUDLIC SERVICE CCLIPA:1Y OF
)
Docket :los. 50-443
- IEU HA!!PSiiIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrock Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
Mr. Robert A.
Backus, Manchester, New Hampshire,for tne intervenor, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
- le s s r s. John A.
Ritsher, Thomas G.
Dicnan,Jr. and
~ Robert K.
Gad, III, Boston, Massachusetts,for the applicants, Puolic Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
?!r. Lawrence Brenner for the nuclear Regulatory Corrissicn start.
?!E:'. ORA: DC:: AND ORDER December 21, 1978
(.'G3 - 513)
The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) has noved to reopen the record of this construction permit proceeding to allow further consideration of the issue whether the aiT icarts are financially qualified to construct and l
operate the Seabrcok facility.
The rction is grounded essentially upon certain recent political developments in M
6 i90105007,
l' 9 the State of Jew Hatpshire which, in cctbination with state-ments assertcaly nade by -'presentative s of the lead applicant ~~1/ in the aahe of those developnents, are said to bear adversely upon applicants' financial qualifications.
We are constrained to dismiss the motion fcr lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought therein.
The financial qualifications issue was determined favorably to the applicants in the Licensing Board's 1976 initial (c cit icn authorizing the issuance of construction perr.its for the Seabrook facility.
L3P-76-26, 3 3RC 857, 367-68, 916-17.
On the appeal taken by SAPL (among others) fron that disposition cf the issue, we affirmed.
ALAB-422, 6 MRC 33, 73-82 (1977).
Our decision was in turn affirmed first by the Conmission~~2/and then by the Court of Appeals fer the First Circuit. ~~3/ No petition for certiorari having been fi.'.cd J r. the Supreme Court within the prescribed pericd for doing so, finality has now attached to the resolution of the question in this proceeding.
Accordingly, we have no authority to reopen it.
_1/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
__2/ CLI-73-1, 7 NRC 1, 8-23 (1973).
3/ :,ew Enaland Coalition on Suclear Follution v.
MRC,
582 F.2d 57, 93 (1976)-
Thess conclusicns are not alcered oy the fact that we still have Jefore us an entirely discrete issue raisec
-a 3 - ;-
in the proceeding; viz., whether there is a citernate site in..cw England which woulc be "obvicusly superior" to the Seabrook site were use of a closed-cycle cooling system to be required at the latter site.
Neither our decision last April calling for a further exploration of that issue ~~4/nor the Commission's directive in June that we (rather than the Licensing Scard) conduct the e::ploration_-5/
purporteu. to preserve our jurisdiction over other, unrelated questions.
To the contrary, it is plain to us from what the Commission said that it regarded the alternate site matter to be all -- apart
-6/
from the generic raden question 2-that remained open for adjudication in this proceeding.
Ue need add only that the unavailability at this juncture of the relief which SAPL seeks frcr us does not mean that that party perforce is without a renedy.
SA?L rer a ir.s free, should it be so inclined, to request the Director of Muclear Reactor Regulation to institute a shou-cause proceeding looking to the modification, suspension or
_4_/
ALAB-471, 7 MRC 477, 499-513.
__5/
CLI-73-14, 7 MEC 952,,
955-57.
~~e/
The radon question was not raised by any of the parties cut is before us for consideration by raason of a Commission instruction applicable to this and a number of other proceedings.
See ALAB-430, 7 MRC 796 (1973).
_ 4 _
revocation of the Seabrook construction permits.
Sec 10 CPE 2.202, 2.206.
'le need not and do not here consider t.hether the assertions in the motion before us might ce sufficient to warrant the granting of such a request.
That will be for the Director to determine in the first instance (subject to possible later Ccmmission review);
it is enough for cur purposes that SAPL is now in the wrong forum.
The motion to reopen the record is dismissed for want of jurisdiccion.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL 30ARD 5
,"- /.
m
. h dA 4ats,Du FloA Nes b 8
.targar/: E.
Secretar; to the Appeal Board