ML19241B532: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:' '
{{#Wiki_filter:'
NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM                     "
NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM g<L q,
g<L             q, COCKEf D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                       ,,
COCKEf D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH dN 11
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH               dN 11               [
[
ryrs a %YY before the                   E     #M               /
a %YY ryrs before the E
ATOMIC SAFE'IY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD         %      _    4
#M
                                          )
/
In the Matter of                       )
ATOMIC SAFE'IY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4
                                          )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF MEW         )       Docket Hos. 50-447 HAMPSHIRE, et al.                   )                     50-4b4
In the Matter of
                                          )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)       )
)
                                          )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF MEW
)
Docket Hos. 50-447 HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-4b4
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
PERMITTEES' MOTION FOR  
PERMITTEES' MOTION FOR  


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
 
DISPOSITION OF ISSUE OF ALTE'.iHATE SITES ASSUMING SEABROOK IS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY COOLING TOWERS 1.
DISPOSITION OF ISSUE OF ALTE'.iHATE SITES ASSUMING SEABROOK IS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY COOLING TOWERS
There is currently sub judice by this Appeal Board the issue of whether there is an alternate site for a nuclear facility anywhere in New England which would be "obviously superior" to the Ceabrook site were cooling towers to be needed in conjunctf.on with a nuclear facility at Seabrook.
: 1. There is currently sub judice by this Appeal Board the issue of whether there is an alternate site for a nuclear facility anywhere in New England which would be "obviously superior" to the Ceabrook site were cooling towers to be needed in conjunctf.on with a nuclear facility at Seabrook.
2.
: 2. Prior to the holdinc of the evidentiary hearing, tae intervenors at the behest of which a farther proceeding on this issue was necessitated repeatedly conceded for the reccid tha         > United States Court of Appeals in the then pending cas. 1 SAPL v. URC, No. 78-1172, did not reconsider and alter its position taken in HECHP v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978) that " s ur.k c o s t s " could be ccunted in comparing 7907180 979               foc 4/J
Prior to the holdinc of the evidentiary hearing, tae intervenors at the behest of which a farther proceeding on this issue was necessitated repeatedly conceded for the reccid tha
                                                                                ;ao
> United States Court of Appeals in the then pending cas.
                                                                                .j 'l L
SAPL v.
URC, No. 78-1172, did not reconsider 1
and alter its position taken in HECHP v.
NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978) that " s ur.k c o s t s " could be ccunted in comparing 7907180 979 foc
;ao 4/J
.j 'l L


alternate sites with Seabrook, then Saabrook, with towers, would prevail over any alternate site.#
alternate sites with Seabrook, then Saabrook, with towers, would prevail over any alternate site.#
3   On May 30, 1979, the United States Court of Appeals issued its decision in SAPL v. HRC, No. 78-1172.     In that decision, a copy of which is supplied herewith, the Court of Appeals in no way detracts from its earlier holding that assuming a sufficient number of sites are looked at, " sunk costs" may be included in the final comparison between the chosen site and each of the altern)tives reviewed.
3 On May 30, 1979, the United States Court of Appeals issued its decision in SAPL v. HRC, No. 78-1172.
In that decision, a copy of which is supplied herewith, the Court of Appeals in no way detracts from its earlier holding that assuming a sufficient number of sites are looked at, " sunk costs" may be included in the final comparison between the chosen site and each of the altern)tives reviewed.
WHEREFORE, in light of the above-described concession a.id decision of the Court of Appeals, the permittees, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, move the Appeal Board to enter an order summaril; disposing of the question set forth in Paragraph 1 above.
WHEREFORE, in light of the above-described concession a.id decision of the Court of Appeals, the permittees, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, move the Appeal Board to enter an order summaril; disposing of the question set forth in Paragraph 1 above.
By the r attorneys, 1% '       'h5bm.
By the r attorneys, 1% '
( ,
'h5bm.
9 hof%4     s-f John A. Rit s!fer Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
(
R. K. Gad lII Ropes & Gray June 6, 3979
9 hof%4 s-f John A. Rit s!fer Thomas G.
* SAPL Argument Regard ~ng Hypothetical Alternative Site Hearing (March 2, 1979) at p. 6; Letter of Robert Backus, Esquire, to Appeal Board (Dec. 18, 1978) at pp. 2-3; Tr. Jan. 15, 1979, at 6; HECHP Motion to Be Excused From Evidentiary Hearings (Dec. 21, 1978), passim. See also letter of Robert dackus, Esquire, to Board (Sept. 18, 1978) at 2.
Dignan, Jr.
                                                                          >~
R.
Ni- #}}
K.
Gad lII Ropes & Gray June 6, 3979
* SAPL Argument Regard ~ng Hypothetical Alternative Site Hearing (March 2, 1979) at p.
6; Letter of Robert Backus, Esquire, to Appeal Board (Dec. 18, 1978) at pp. 2-3; Tr. Jan. 15, 1979, at 6; HECHP Motion to Be Excused From Evidentiary Hearings (Dec. 21, 1978), passim.
See also letter of Robert dackus, Esquire, to Board (Sept. 18, 1978) at 2. > ~
Ni-
#}}

Latest revision as of 14:18, 4 January 2025

Motion by Util Requesting Summary Disposition of Issue Re Alternate Sites,Assuming Plant Is Required to Use Cooling Towers
ML19241B532
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/06/1979
From: Dignan T, Gad R, Ritsher J
ROPES & GRAY
To:
Shared Package
ML19241B533 List:
References
NUDOCS 7907180878
Download: ML19241B532 (2)
v • d • e


Text

'

NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM g<L q,

COCKEf D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH dN 11

[

a %YY ryrs before the E

  1. M

/

ATOMIC SAFE'IY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4

)

In the Matter of

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF MEW

)

Docket Hos. 50-447 HAMPSHIRE, et al.

)

50-4b4

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)

)

)

PERMITTEES' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF ISSUE OF ALTE'.iHATE SITES ASSUMING SEABROOK IS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY COOLING TOWERS 1.

There is currently sub judice by this Appeal Board the issue of whether there is an alternate site for a nuclear facility anywhere in New England which would be "obviously superior" to the Ceabrook site were cooling towers to be needed in conjunctf.on with a nuclear facility at Seabrook.

2.

Prior to the holdinc of the evidentiary hearing, tae intervenors at the behest of which a farther proceeding on this issue was necessitated repeatedly conceded for the reccid tha

> United States Court of Appeals in the then pending cas.

SAPL v.

URC, No. 78-1172, did not reconsider 1

and alter its position taken in HECHP v.

NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978) that " s ur.k c o s t s " could be ccunted in comparing 7907180 979 foc

ao 4/J

.j 'l L

alternate sites with Seabrook, then Saabrook, with towers, would prevail over any alternate site.#

3 On May 30, 1979, the United States Court of Appeals issued its decision in SAPL v. HRC, No. 78-1172.

In that decision, a copy of which is supplied herewith, the Court of Appeals in no way detracts from its earlier holding that assuming a sufficient number of sites are looked at, " sunk costs" may be included in the final comparison between the chosen site and each of the altern)tives reviewed.

WHEREFORE, in light of the above-described concession a.id decision of the Court of Appeals, the permittees, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749, move the Appeal Board to enter an order summaril; disposing of the question set forth in Paragraph 1 above.

By the r attorneys, 1% '

'h5bm.

(

9 hof%4 s-f John A. Rit s!fer Thomas G.

Dignan, Jr.

R.

K.

Gad lII Ropes & Gray June 6, 3979

  • SAPL Argument Regard ~ng Hypothetical Alternative Site Hearing (March 2, 1979) at p.

6; Letter of Robert Backus, Esquire, to Appeal Board (Dec. 18, 1978) at pp. 2-3; Tr. Jan. 15, 1979, at 6; HECHP Motion to Be Excused From Evidentiary Hearings (Dec. 21, 1978), passim.

See also letter of Robert dackus, Esquire, to Board (Sept. 18, 1978) at 2. > ~

Ni-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19241B532&oldid=4896552"