ML20207Q022
| ML20207Q022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1987 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2222 OL, NUDOCS 8701210073 | |
| Download: ML20207Q022 (1) | |
Text
T;; ; ; : : '- - _: ::
i
~-
~ ^
~} 2, 2. 2 df ** "%,
UNITED STATES T
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
(*..*,/
msmuorou. o.c. mss January 15, 1987 87 JAN 16 P2 M9
.0FFiu t#
h**
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
EccKET g y " I Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SERVED JAN 161987 Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 -04
Dear Mr. Bordenick:
i This is in reference to your letter of January 14, 1987, to Ms. C.
Jean Shoemaker, Secretary of the Appeal Board, dealing with the condition for licensing we imposed in Paragraph 2 of the Conclusicas of Law, at page 50 in the Concluding Partial Initial Decision.
It provides as a condition precedent to the issuance of any operating licenses to e
the Applicants, it must first be determined by " appropriate authority,"
that the changed information contained in Applicants' letter af September 18, 1986 does not lead to a conclusion inconsistent with that 4
of this Board on Contention 10.1.
The circumstances giving rise to the condition were that following the issuance of our first partial initial decision on August 27, 1986, which involved in part Contention 10.1, and the filing of a notice of t
appeal by Intervenor GANE on September 8,1986, Applicants' by letter of September 18, 1986, notified the Licensing and Appeal Boards of an inaccuracy in the information it prrvided on hearing of Contention 10.1.
The condition was imposed in order to resolve the matter of the changed information prior to licensing.
In ir posing the condition precedent, the Board stated that prior to licensing the matter should first be resolved by " appropriate authority." In your letter of January 14, 1987, you indicate that the appropriate authority is the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, without stating who made such a determination.
In writing to you, it is i
the intention of the Board to make known that at the time we set the condition we did not know who the appropriate authority may be and we still do not know, for it depends on the course the proceeding will 4
f take.
For example, the appropriate authority may be the Appeal Board or the Commission itself.
4 Sincerely, i
Morton B. Marguli s, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I
cc: Vogtle Service List 5701210073 870115 i
G PDR '
bD{
PDR ADOCK 05000424:
- - - -.