ML20102B342
| ML20102B342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Seabrook |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1983 |
| From: | Patterson W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090199 | |
| Download: ML20102B342 (2) | |
Text
I,
,y-w
-( ~
January 23, 1983 9
~
- Note to:' Joseph F. Scinto Deputy Director. Hearing Division, OELD
- From:
niilliam F. Patterson, Jr.
Attorney,OELD
Subject:
CHALLENGES TO SEABROOK UNIT II This note is in response to a request to be briefed on issues raised which may be relevant to the requested CP extensions for Seabrook Units I and II.
- There have been three challenges thus far to Seabrook Unit II: two challenges to the issuance of an operating license and one opposing the request for renewal of its construction permit.
1.
Doherty Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed September 6,1983 and amended October 4, this late-filed petition C
- sought to introduce a contention challenging the Unit II OL application on the ground that 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(a)(1)'s " substantial completion" re-quirement for the issuance of an OL could not be met because Unit II was allegedly only 22% complete. The petition was denied as nontimely by the
. Licensing Board on November 15, 1983. A Notice of Appeal was filed on December 1,-1983,'to which the Staff responded in opposition on December 16. The parties are awaiting a decision by the Appeal Board.
, j.
2.
SAPL Motion to Dismiss Unit II OL Application and late-Filed Contention I'
On September 26, 1983, SAPL moved to dismiss the OL application for Unit II as untimely, on the ground that the Licensing Board could not make a finding lJ i of " substantial completion" in light of the delayed construction of Unit II.
On December-14, SAPL filed a " memorandum"'in support of its motion and also proffered a contention embodying the essence of that motion, in the event the motion were to be denied. On January 13, 1984, the Licensing Board J
denied SAPL's motion on the ground that the 50.57(a)(1) finding of "sub-stantial completion" is made by the Director of NRR and not by the Board.
The Board thus distinguished between its power to authorize the issuance
- of a license and NRR's power to issue the license. The Board also dis-mis' sed the late-filed contention after finding that a balancing of the
' 1 2.714(a) factors weighed against admission. No notice of appeal has been filed to-date.
[h99840518 ADA7084-166 PDR t..espesa* +.4
.,*.*r.
m
[,
de p.,w-me--
,w e
p
- * ' *y
- J
.a.. -
.. ~
1
. (~
Conneckicut Divisi n of Consumer Counsel (CDCC) Request 3.
to Deny Renewal of Unit II's Construction Pemit
=0ctob Me 1983 CDCC filed a petition asking the Comiss on to deny ^
renewal Af4he construction pemit for Unit II on grounds re(lated-t cost of completion and need for power. The Staff responded on Novenber 29, opposing the request on the ground that CDCC did not directly challenge the permit holder's asserted reasons constituting " good cause" for extension, as required under Washington Public Power su ly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 1 & 2), CL1-82-29, 16 NRC 1221, 12 1982). The Staff urged the Comission in the alternative to refer the(matter to the Chaiman of the ASLB Panel for further consideration, if it should detemine further inquiry to be warranted. On January 4, 1984, SAPL filed a "joinder" supporting the CDCC request. On January 17, 1984, the Applicants adopted the Staff substantive position on this matter and asked that the petition be dismissed. No decision has issued to date.
t 1~.
William F. Patterson, Jr.
Attorney, OELD
(..
4 i
i 6
9
'(
=
- [x
~1'
- -**?.M*.9****
- T r t *' # '.4*
,3M*
s
, f **
t
?-
W~.-