ML19308D019
| ML19308D019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1980 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130097 | |
| Download: ML19308D019 (2) | |
Text
-
)o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g y
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555
- s., * /
JAN 3 0 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director Office of the Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
Request for Hearing in Connection with Forked River CP Jxtension
~
On August 31, 1978, Jersey Central Power & Light Co. requested that the latest date for completion of construction of the Forked River facility as it appears,
in the construction permit, be extended from October 4, 1978, to February 1, 1985.
DPM had not yet begun its review of the application when the accident occurred at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
As a result of the effects of the accident on the cash resources of GPU and its subsidiaries, including JCP&L, construction work at Forked River (only about 5",' complete) was suspended on April 3,1979.
Sub-sequently, JCP&L requested the Staff to defer action on its extension request because construction would be suspended until at least mid-1981.
JCP&L stated that a completion date beyond February 1, 1985, may be proposed when construction is recomenced.
On September 27, 1979, the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey, Stanley C.
Van Ness, wrote to the Chairman of the Commission protesting the "de facto"
~~
i continuation of the CP.
He also asked that a hearing be scheduled on saiety and financial qualification issues related to Forked River.
(A copy of the letter is attached for your information.) On January 4,1980, and before his letter of September 27, 1979, had been answered, Mr. Van Ness filed a fomal request for hearing pursuant to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act.
(A copy of the request is attached for your information.)
No notice of opportunity for hearing on the CP extension has been published, and if a finding that the extension does not involve a significant hazards consider-ation is made no pre-notice of the proposed action and opportunity for hearing need be published.
Only a post-notice of the CP extension would be required.
In light of the fact that there has never been a finding that a CP extension involved a significant hazards consideration, it is unlikely that such a finding will be t
4 l
800213oo97
{= -
-a
~
C
- made in this case.
If that suppositio;. is correct, the Act would permit the Comission to take final action on the CP-extension request without prior notice and offer of opportunity for hearing.
However, an opportunity for hearing would still have to be made available after action is taken on the CP extension request.
Even though prior notice of the proposed action may not be required,10 CFR 2.105(a)(4) permits you to pre-notice the action and to afford an opportunity for hearing before taking final action on the CP extension request.
I recom-mend that you exercise that discretion to afford an opportunity for hearing before taking final action on the CP extension request for the Forked River facility.
My reasons for making this recommendation are:
1.
An opportunity for hearing must be afforded at some point, as noted above.
2.
The Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey has requested a hearing and the Ocean County, New Jersey (the county in which the facility is located) Board of Freeholders has passed a resolution supporting his effort.
3.
JCP&L should not be unduly harmed by the holding of a hearing prior to the taking of final action on the CP extension request because 10 CFR 2.109 provides that the permit will remain in effect until the applicaticr.
has been finally determined.
4.
Construction is presently suspended and is not expected to resume until at least mid-1981.
5.
The facts in this case appear to weigh even more heavily in favor of a prior hearing than in the Bailly case.
P
~ '
If you agree with my recommendation, your Staff should contact the assigned attorney on my Staff when it has made its determination whether this matter involves a significant hazards consideration.
If, as anticipated, no significant hazards consideration is involved, we will prepare an appropriate notice which limits the issue to be heard at the hearing to whether " good cause," in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(b), has been shown for extension of the date for completion of construction of the Forked River facility.
h44-Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director Attachments As Stated cc w/o attachinent R. Benedict R. Baer S. Varga D. Vassallo L
..