ML19347E660
| ML19347E660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8105130190 | |
| Download: ML19347E660 (1) | |
Text
m i
,8 UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 34
,gg waswiscTom,=. c. 20sss 79 i
4fy
'or 2
May 7, 1981 A s dpf g
o.A)
/c 7
n[
s,.g l'3 N 0,
p pa u.s $ 7dson O
l Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman t'R7 j
"Mg Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Re: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, l
Unit No. 1) Docket No. F-564A
Dear Chainnan Miller:
Ns promised at the May 5,1981, Conference with Counsel, I am enclosing 4
a copy of the Appeal Board's recent opinion in the Perkins case.
Vergtrulyyours, l
ek R. Goldberg ounsel for NRC Staff cc: Seymour Wenner Sheldon J. Wolfe Daniel I. Davidson Peter K. Matt i
Michael J. Strumwasser l
H. Chester Horn l
William H. Armstrong i
I l
8105130 $
i
\\
Y-
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
,~
J a
Administrative Judges:
r;
'e47'l
~
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck r
Thomas S. Moore
-=w-In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
)
50-489 (Perkins Nucle; - Station, Units 1,
)
50-490 2 and 3)
)
)
Mr. William L.
Porter, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the applicant, Duke Power Company.
M:. K_lliam G. Pfefferkorn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the intervenors, Mary Apperson Davis et al.
Mr. Sherwin E.
Turk for the Nuclear Regulato:..y Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM March 20, 1981 A.
Before this Board is the appeal of intervenors Mary Apperson Davis and the Yadkin River Committee from the February 22, 1980 partial initial decision rendered by the Licensing Board in this con-struction permit proceeding.
LBP-80-9, 11 NRC 310.
That decision l
addressed primarily the question whether there is an alternate site for the location of the Perkins facility which is obviously superior to the proposed site.
Although the Board answered that question in the negative, the result was not the authorization of construction l
l
.s likD,#pon DNllDI-
.. _..la u.
-