ML19241B532: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:' ' | {{#Wiki_filter:' ' | ||
NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM " | NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM " | ||
g<L q, COCKEf D | g<L q, COCKEf D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,, | ||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,, | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH dN 11 [ | NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH dN 11 [ | ||
ryrs a %YY before the E #M / | ryrs a %YY before the E #M / | ||
| Line 42: | Line 40: | ||
.j 'l L | .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. | 9 hof%4 s-f John A. Rit s!fer Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. | ||
R. K. Gad lII Ropes & Gray June 6, 3979 | 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. | * 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- #}} | Ni- #}} | ||
Revision as of 01:59, 2 February 2020
| ML19241B532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| 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) | |
Text
' '
NPC PUBLIC DOCMENT ROOM "
g<L q, COCKEf D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOH dN 11 [
ryrs a %YY before the E #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. 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
- ao
.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- #