ML19343B444
| ML19343B444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000376 |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8012240006 | |
| Download: ML19343B444 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
A w
og
- v..
LM M @ AMC/L r'k
!% >-l:"
rumR ascavamr CassIm 7.
~
M S/LW /aTIIN E ED
"; 3
. h %UD[(/
- \\,,
:n
- l-Before Adminhtrative Judges:
sholdnn J. Wolfe, Cbm4-Dr. Richard F. Cole Gustave A. L4nanharger, Jr.
sERyta DEC 171980.
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-376 CP PUERIO RICO EIECIRIC POWER ATEdDRI1T
)
)
Decenber 16, 1980 (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)
)
)
ORDER Under date of Dac h 3, 1980, Intervenors filed a Reply To Applicant's and NRC Staff's Contention 'Ihat North Coast Nuclear Plant's Withdrawn Application should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice.
We note that Intervenors argue that Applicant is guilty of "b4 Adan, darei $11 action" and of " false pretenses" in that it failed to "infona, suggest or in any way hint to the parties and to the Board that on August 5, 1976" it had initiated a reversal action in Court to return the w ivy & lated land to its original owners. Apparently relying m che " clean hands doctrine",
Intervenors urge for the first time that Applicant's notion to withdraw its app 14carinn should be granted but only with prepviica lest the door be left open "for further wrongful action".
In past submiss' ions,- Intervenors had solely argued that this reverse w ivytiation action evidenced that Applicant had ahandnnad any intention to construct the nuclear plant and thus that an order should be issued dismissing the application with prejudice should the Boerd determine, after an eviderief hearing, ther. Applicant no longer intended to construct the plant.
g6 4 be\\
- eo na s ooou 5
. Apparently the Interveno:spresented this exolicit a_p t for the first ti:ne in tha4-Reply of Dreiher 3,1980 because the Applicant and tFm Staff in their respective Respcases of October 3 and October 8,1980 argued that a request for withdrawal of an application should be granted without pre-judice unless it is shown that prejudice will result to the public interest, and that, in the instant case, Intervenors had not alleged a:rf such prejudice to the public interest. Thes, this 16th day of De-h, 1980, it is ORIERED Dat since Applicant and Staff have not had an opporrunity to address this new argunent, they shall have tritil Decedoer 31, 1980, within s ich to f41a respcasive replys.
FDP, HE AITIC SAEIY AND LIGNSING BOARD
. b) dl-e W n<<tra21ve Judge i
l l
-.