ML19340D436

Status Rept 6 & Request That Proceeding Be Terminated.Issues Are Moot Due to Util Decision to End Nuclear Project. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19340D436
Person / Time
Site:	05000516, 05000517
Issue date:	12/19/1980
From:	Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8012300572
Download: ML19340D436 (5)

Text

12/19/80 c

D 7

/N O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

s Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal BoarB U N " ctyle c' 'II q .e d C In the Matter of / p#,fs(c$rge p

) g

) '

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) m and ) Docket Nos. 50-516 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & ) 50-517 GAS CORPORATION )

)

(Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

=-  ?> n y _

Status Report No. 6 r;

And E Ui <-

Request That The Proceeding Be Ended

'c;. ,

hl o I.

P t-Normal regulatory review of the proposed Jamesport Nuclear Power Station has been underway for more than six years. The Jamesport Application to the New York State Siting Board was docketed in April 1974. The Jamesport PSAR and ER, in turn, were docketed in August 1974.

State evidentiary hearings began in October 1974 and ended in September 1977, after 123 days of testimony. Federal evi-dentiary sessions (preceded by 6 prehearing conferences over a 19-month period) began in August 1976 and ended in June 1977, after 44 days of testimony. Thus a total of 167 days, spread over three years, went to presenting and examining Jamesport witnesses.

8012300$A c-

?

\

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board handed down a 105-page partial initial decision on Jamesport in May 1978 and a 26-page final decision on December 26, 1978. The ASLB authorized con-struction permits, which were issued on January 4, 1979. In June of the prior year, the Presiding Examiner in the state pro-ceeding had also ruled in favor of the proposed nuclear units, while the Associate Examiner hLd recommended one nuclear unit at the alternate site, Shoreham West.

Both the federal and state initial decisions were appealed.

Briefs on the ASLB's May 1978 partial initial decision were filed the following summer. This Board heard several hours of oral argument on November 9, 1978. Briefs on the rest of the ASLB decision were filed by April 1979. And briefs to the Siting Board were submitted by August 1979.

In January 1980, the Siting Board orally indicated that it would certify a coal station at Jamesport, rather than nuclear units. On September 8, 1980, the Board did so in writing. In October of this year, various petitions for reconsideration were filed with the Board. It has yet to act definitively. There is no credible possibility, however, that it will decide to author-ize nuclear units at Jamesport. Accordingly, LILCO's Board of Directors voted on November 26, 1980, to end the Jamesport nu-clear project.

l l

l l

\

II.

Since the Jamesport nuclear units will not now be built ir-respective of the outcome of this appeal, the issues remaining before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board are moot.

Thus the Applicants request an end to the appeal as well as to the construction permit proceeding as a whole.

In a similar situation several months ago the Appeal Board ruled that the ASLB's initial decision, LBP-77-53, 6 NRC 350 (1977), is vacated on the ground of mootness; this construction permit proceeding is terminated; and the Director of ikelear Reactor Regu-lation is instructed to revoke the outstanding con-struction permit by reason of the vacating of LBP 53.

Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-596, slip opinion at 5 (June 17, 1980).

Presumably the same action will be taken as to Jamesport.

III.

It remains to be seen how keenly the absence of 2300 mega-

, watts of nuclear power at Jamesport will be felt by the affected public. The impact will best be judged when it is first driven home a decade from now. No passage of time is necessary, however,.to recognize the wasteful way in which decisions yea or nay were made about Jamesport. The complexity of the licensing process , -its redundancy, glacial pace, and capacity for l

l l

i

-. _. ._. . . .. - =

i ,

t 4-contradictory federal versus state results defy adequate de- ,

scription. This is a time of " lessons learned." 'Among them should be the acute need for licensing reform.

Respectfully submitted, .

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l

By W. Tay for Reveley, I

[

i Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 i

i

-w.- , ,, , .m.. . , , . - ..,..,~g-. --.,.-r.,, , ,..r ,- , -.,w - . . . , ., -- . , . .,

\

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Status Report No. 6 And Request That The Proceeding Be Ended were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on December 19, 1980.

Richard S. Salzman, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Scfety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Irving Like, Esquire Reilly and Like Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire 200 West Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Babylon, New York 11702 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph C. Gramer, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20555 425 Broadhollow Road Melville , New Yc- - 11746 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Route 1, Box 190D Mrs. Jean H. 1. .. e Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Mrs. Shirley Bachrach Box 1103 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Southold, New York 11971 Route #3, Box 350A Watkinsville, Georgia 30677

hhy <

l R- Tayrof Reveley, III

! Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street l .

P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 3212 l

Dated: Decenber 19, 1980 l

l f

,