ML20147D250

Reports Staff View That Oral Argument & Site Inspec of Subj Facility Should Continue as Scheduled

ML20147D250
Person / Time
Site:	05000516, 05000517
Issue date:	10/05/1978
From:	Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Johnson W, Salzman R, Sharfman J NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 7810140004
Download: ML20147D250 (2)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

,rsmc UNn t o sT A rt s 4

h /[S,,, 3' fillCLE AR NEG13LATORY COUiMISSION

,@ M $e, L9 nf.u nw r os o. c. am

< , ,. e ,. ,,

t 1, .o.g' /

October 5,1978

• • "* NRQ PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM Jerom E. Sharfman, Esq. , Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 t Washington, D. C. 20555

- (v Richard S. Salzman, Esq.

Atomic Safety cnd Licensing Appeal Board d S\

U.S. Nuc1 ear Regulatory Co:wissien o vgA$

Washington, D. C. 205S5 99YA In the 14atter of $ SN ' T,M h Long Island Lighting Company gh (Jamsport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2' Docket Nos. 50-516 and 50-517 ~%

b cd a g*/

Gentlemen:

In your letter of September 29, 1978, you informed us that the Governor of the State of New York has directed *ne Chairman of the Power Authority of that State to negotiete with Lor 9 Island Lighting Conpany to acquire the Jamesport nuclear plant site with the aim of substituting a govern-mnt-owned fossil-fired plant in its stead. In light of this development, you asked our views as to whether it would be better to proceed with the oral argument and site inspection tentatively set for the 18th and 19th. of October or to postpone them pending further development.

Based on the Staf f's current understanding, the action proposed by Governor Carey is open to nunerous legal questions under State law. Thus, Staff is of the view that the recent development at the State level is not significantly distinguishable from the continuing pendency of the Article Vill Board proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission's holding in Koshkonong,which we quote below, should be applicable in determir.ing whetler to vroceed with the oral argument and site visit by the Appeal

~

Board.

"* *

• As a general rule it is the practice of the Commission to pursue its administrative procedures while other state and local proceed-ings are under way. Such a practice is hardly a waste of time; on the contrary, it is the efficient, economical and expeditious course.

See Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre

~~

Nuclear Generating 5tition), dLEi-171, S7 at 39 (January 21, 1974). A ponderous, indeed arbitrary, protocol for licensing processes among local, state and federal dJthorities would .be irresponsible in view of the enormous economic ano social costs

~7E/o/y000(

~

9 4

2_

necessarily entailed." Wisconsin Electric Power Company, -

et al. (Koshkonong fluclear Frant, Units T and 2),

FAE, 928, 930 (1974).

It is the Staff's view that the oral argument and site inspection should continue as scheduled.

Sincerely, f} Aman k 6A<0 Bernard M. Bord 6nich Counsel for NRC Staff cc:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Carl G. Dwo rkin , Esq.

Mr. Ralph S. Decker Frederick H. Lawrence, Esq.

Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Ira Lee Zebrak, Esq.

Eddard J. Walsh, Jr. , Esq. Dr. Arthur Tamplin W. Taylor Peveley, III, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel M r. A. E. Kintigh Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environnental Protection and Docketing and Service Section Progress Committee Jeff rey Cohen , Esq.

Dr. Caryl R. Granttham lis. Jean ll. Tiedke Dr. Ilarris Fischer l Irving Like, Esq.

Mrs. Laeti tia deK. Bradley l Ms. Shi rley L. Bachrach l Ms. Adelaide Flatau William C. Chapeh Joseph C. Gramer, Esq.

_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _