ML19310A218: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ ___ ___ _ | {{#Wiki_filter:_ _ ___ ___ _ | ||
, s I | |||
, s | |||
I | |||
m /N | m /N | ||
' Ri | ' Ri t DOCKETED USNRC g f-MAY 131980 5 C | ||
t DOCKETED USNRC g f-MAY 131980 5 C | |||
~ | ~ | ||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C 6mce of the See: tary f | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C 6mce of the See: tary f | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 gg2 & service . | NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 gg2 & service . | ||
Branch in4>' ,'7 | Branch in4>' ,'7 A | ||
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g 9 In the Matter of ) | |||
In the Matter of ) | |||
) | ) | ||
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523 . | PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523 . | ||
Line 49: | Line 38: | ||
pressed for dismissal of the application at the conference of January 22, 1980. At that time, the Board expressed its s reluctance to dismiss the application, on the basis that the applicant should be afforded some opportunity to address the geology and seismology issues pending, prior to Board con-sideration of dismissal. However, the Board recognized the <g 9 0 8006060ugqd | pressed for dismissal of the application at the conference of January 22, 1980. At that time, the Board expressed its s reluctance to dismiss the application, on the basis that the applicant should be afforded some opportunity to address the geology and seismology issues pending, prior to Board con-sideration of dismissal. However, the Board recognized the <g 9 0 8006060ugqd | ||
l difficulties attendant to maintaining an application under I these circumstances, where applicant and staff had no' fore-l i | |||
l | |||
difficulties attendant to maintaining an application under I these circumstances, where applicant and staff had no' fore-l i | |||
seeable plans for processing the application to conclusion. | seeable plans for processing the application to conclusion. | ||
Accordingly, although the Board declined to dismiss, it did l | Accordingly, although the Board declined to dismiss, it did l | ||
indicate that it would require' reasonable further progress by . | indicate that it would require' reasonable further progress by . | ||
the applicant, and to that end issued its order of March 6, 1980, requiring regular reports indicating the steps being taken I | |||
the applicant, and to that end issued its order of March 6, | |||
1980, requiring regular reports indicating the steps being taken I | |||
j to pursue the application. | j to pursue the application. | ||
; The first of these reports has now been received, and it t | ; The first of these reports has now been received, and it t | ||
is evident that applicant is taking no steps whatsoever to pursue its application. Applicant states that there have been i | is evident that applicant is taking no steps whatsoever to pursue its application. Applicant states that there have been i | ||
j preliminary discussions, and that additional discussions are - | j preliminary discussions, and that additional discussions are - | ||
1 | 1 anticipated. It has provided no details regarding the sub-stance of any actions it has taken or intends to undertake, and apparently there are none. The most specific statement made in applicant's " Report" is that applicants "are consider-ing the possibility of amending their application" to change l | ||
anticipated. It has provided no details regarding the sub-stance of any actions it has taken or intends to undertake, and apparently there are none. The most specific statement made in applicant's " Report" is that applicants "are consider-ing the possibility of amending their application" to change l | |||
the site of the project to a site on the Hanford reservation. l The staf f report of April 15 likewise demonstrates no progress. | the site of the project to a site on the Hanford reservation. l The staf f report of April 15 likewise demonstrates no progress. | ||
Thus, neither applicant nor the staff has provided the | Thus, neither applicant nor the staff has provided the | ||
' ~ | ' ~ | ||
Line 80: | Line 54: | ||
pursuit of the application, nor has applicant even alleged l | pursuit of the application, nor has applicant even alleged l | ||
) | ) | ||
that it continuas to pursue the application. At the January l I 22 conference, both SCANP and Skagit County expressed to the | that it continuas to pursue the application. At the January l I 22 conference, both SCANP and Skagit County expressed to the i | ||
i | |||
Board their concerns about the massive irreparable injury which l | Board their concerns about the massive irreparable injury which l | ||
the pendency of this application inflicts upon them, includ- | the pendency of this application inflicts upon them, includ- | ||
ing the great uncertainty which clouds Skagit County'~s gov-ernment and all of its citizens. The reports submitted by applicant and staf f demonstrate conclusively that there is no just cause to allow this injuiy to continue. Accordingly, . | |||
ing the great uncertainty which clouds Skagit County'~s gov-ernment and all of its citizens. The reports submitted by applicant and staf f demonstrate conclusively that there is no | |||
just cause to allow this injuiy to continue. Accordingly, . | |||
SCANP urges the Board to dismiss this application with prejudice. | SCANP urges the Board to dismiss this application with prejudice. | ||
DATED this day of May, 1980. | DATED this day of May, 1980. | ||
R'espect fully submitted, ROGER M. LEED By e Michael W. Gendler Counsel for SCANP - | R'espect fully submitted, ROGER M. LEED By e Michael W. Gendler Counsel for SCANP - | ||
l l | l l | ||
140/A15 i | 140/A15 i | ||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of -) " | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of -) " | ||
) | ) | ||
Line 122: | Line 75: | ||
) # 'ecc1518 \\ | ) # 'ecc1518 \\ | ||
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - | ||
C D gp(13 N # -12 | C D gp(13 N # -12 I hereby certify that copies of: g, ces SCANP'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION \ p dated May 8,1980, have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 8th day of May, 1980. | ||
1 Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0ffice of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 : | |||
I hereby certify that copies of: g, ces SCANP'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION \ p | |||
dated May 8,1980, have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 8th day of May, 1980. | |||
1 Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0ffice of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory | |||
Commission Commission 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 : | |||
Washington, D.C. 20036 ; | Washington, D.C. 20036 ; | ||
Richard L. Black, Esq. ' | Richard L. Black, Esq. ' | ||
Line 138: | Line 84: | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Facility Site Evaluation Commission Council Washington, D.C. 20555 820 East Fifth Avenue Olymp ia , Washington 98504 Certificate - 1 | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Facility Site Evaluation Commission Council Washington, D.C. 20555 820 East Fifth Avenue Olymp ia , Washington 98504 Certificate - 1 | ||
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq., Russel W. Busch. | Richard M. Sandvik, Esq., Russel W. Busch. | ||
Assistant Attorney General Evergreen Legal Services Department of Justice 520 Smith Tower 500 Pacific Building Seattle, Washington 98104 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon (7204 Thomas Moser Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robert Lowenstein, Esq. ' | Assistant Attorney General Evergreen Legal Services Department of Justice 520 Smith Tower 500 Pacific Building Seattle, Washington 98104 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon (7204 Thomas Moser Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robert Lowenstein, Esq. ' | ||
Line 146: | Line 89: | ||
121 S.W. Salmon Street James W. Durham, Esq. TB 13 Portland General Electric Co. Portland, Oregon 97204 121 S.W. Salmon Street TB 17 Portland, Oregon 97204 CFSP and FOB E. Stachon & L. Marbet 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 - | 121 S.W. Salmon Street James W. Durham, Esq. TB 13 Portland General Electric Co. Portland, Oregon 97204 121 S.W. Salmon Street TB 17 Portland, Oregon 97204 CFSP and FOB E. Stachon & L. Marbet 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 - | ||
Canadian Consulate General Peter A. van Brakel Vice-Consul 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 F. Theodore Thomsen Perk ins , Cole, Stone, Olsen | Canadian Consulate General Peter A. van Brakel Vice-Consul 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 F. Theodore Thomsen Perk ins , Cole, Stone, Olsen | ||
& Willians 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Alan P. O' Kelly | & Willians 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Alan P. O' Kelly Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman - | ||
& 0' Kelly 1400 Washington Trust Financial Center Spokane, Washington 99204 DATED: . | |||
Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman - | ROGER M. LEED By } } | ||
& 0' Kelly | |||
1400 Washington Trust Financial Center Spokane, Washington 99204 DATED: . | |||
ROGER M. LEED | |||
By } } | |||
Certificate - 2 f,idhuel'#!Gendler}} | Certificate - 2 f,idhuel'#!Gendler}} |
Latest revision as of 19:51, 21 February 2020
ML19310A218 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Skagit |
Issue date: | 05/08/1980 |
From: | Leed R LEED, R.M., SKAGITONIANS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (SCANP) |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
References | |
NUDOCS 8006060299 | |
Download: ML19310A218 (5) | |
Text
_ _ ___ ___ _
, s I
m /N
' Ri t DOCKETED USNRC g f-MAY 131980 5 C
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C 6mce of the See: tary f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 gg2 & service .
Branch in4>' ,'7 A
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g 9 In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523 .
)
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Proje'ct, )
Units 1 and 2) ) May 8, 1980
)
)
SCANP'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION SCANP has received letters dated April 14 and 15, 1980 -
from applicant and staf f, respective, which apparently were submitted pursuant to the Board's order dated March 6,1980, requiring regular status reports respecting applicant 's efforts to pursue its application. These letters demonstrate that, contrary to the Board's order, applicant is not pursuing its application diligently, and the application therefore should be dismissed with prejudice.
, The Board will recall that SCANP and Skagit County ,
pressed for dismissal of the application at the conference of January 22, 1980. At that time, the Board expressed its s reluctance to dismiss the application, on the basis that the applicant should be afforded some opportunity to address the geology and seismology issues pending, prior to Board con-sideration of dismissal. However, the Board recognized the <g 9 0 8006060ugqd
l difficulties attendant to maintaining an application under I these circumstances, where applicant and staff had no' fore-l i
seeable plans for processing the application to conclusion.
Accordingly, although the Board declined to dismiss, it did l
indicate that it would require' reasonable further progress by .
the applicant, and to that end issued its order of March 6, 1980, requiring regular reports indicating the steps being taken I
j to pursue the application.
- The first of these reports has now been received, and it t
is evident that applicant is taking no steps whatsoever to pursue its application. Applicant states that there have been i
j preliminary discussions, and that additional discussions are -
1 anticipated. It has provided no details regarding the sub-stance of any actions it has taken or intends to undertake, and apparently there are none. The most specific statement made in applicant's " Report" is that applicants "are consider-ing the possibility of amending their application" to change l
the site of the project to a site on the Hanford reservation. l The staf f report of April 15 likewise demonstrates no progress.
Thus, neither applicant nor the staff has provided the
' ~
Board with any substantive information regarding applicant's ,
pursuit of the application, nor has applicant even alleged l
)
that it continuas to pursue the application. At the January l I 22 conference, both SCANP and Skagit County expressed to the i
Board their concerns about the massive irreparable injury which l
the pendency of this application inflicts upon them, includ-
ing the great uncertainty which clouds Skagit County'~s gov-ernment and all of its citizens. The reports submitted by applicant and staf f demonstrate conclusively that there is no just cause to allow this injuiy to continue. Accordingly, .
SCANP urges the Board to dismiss this application with prejudice.
DATED this day of May, 1980.
R'espect fully submitted, ROGER M. LEED By e Michael W. Gendler Counsel for SCANP -
l l
140/A15 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of -) "
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523
)
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, )
May 8, 1980 m Units 1 and 2) ) $ 4
)
) # 'ecc1518 \\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -
C D gp(13 N # -12 I hereby certify that copies of: g, ces SCANP'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION \ p dated May 8,1980, have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 8th day of May, 1980.
1 Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0ffice of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 :
Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
Richard L. Black, Esq. '
Dr. Frank F. liooper, Member Counsel for NRC Staff ~l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '
School of Natural Resources Commission Univers ity of Michigan Office of the Executive Legal Ann Arbor, MI. 48104 Director l Washington, D, C. 20555 l Gustave A. Linenberger, Member )
Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board N*cholas D. Lewis, Chairman '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Facility Site Evaluation Commission Council Washington, D.C. 20555 820 East Fifth Avenue Olymp ia , Washington 98504 Certificate - 1
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq., Russel W. Busch.
Assistant Attorney General Evergreen Legal Services Department of Justice 520 Smith Tower 500 Pacific Building Seattle, Washington 98104 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon (7204 Thomas Moser Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robert Lowenstein, Esq. '
Skagit County Courthouse Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Warren Hastings Washington, D.C. 20036 Portland General Electric Co.
121 S.W. Salmon Street James W. Durham, Esq. TB 13 Portland General Electric Co. Portland, Oregon 97204 121 S.W. Salmon Street TB 17 Portland, Oregon 97204 CFSP and FOB E. Stachon & L. Marbet 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 -
Canadian Consulate General Peter A. van Brakel Vice-Consul 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 F. Theodore Thomsen Perk ins , Cole, Stone, Olsen
& Willians 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Alan P. O' Kelly Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman -
& 0' Kelly 1400 Washington Trust Financial Center Spokane, Washington 99204 DATED: .
ROGER M. LEED By } }
Certificate - 2 f,idhuel'#!Gendler