ML17193A602
| ML17193A602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | Wolf J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012310419 | |
| Download: ML17193A602 (3) | |
Text
...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATO~IC S~ETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
John F. Wolf, Chairman Dr. Lind~ W. Little
- Dr. Forrest J. Remick In the Matter of:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
)
)
(Dresden Station
_ -*~
Units 2 and 3)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)
- ORDER Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
- December 22, 1980 Th~ State of Illinois (Intervenor) movej this Bvard (Interv~nor's 11/26/80 Motion for Reconsideration,. etc~) to recon.sider its granting of. the App lic(lnt Is oral. motion for.*
a continuance of the*hearing beingheld on November 19; 20
. I
- and. 21; 1980;;.* after all** a~ailable evidence had been received. *. *
(Trpp; 380-384)
In making the oral motion the Applicant stated that a
- bowing of the fuel *Channel assembly had. been noted recently; tha.t time was needed* for. further analysis of the phenomenon as to it:s safety.significance and to permit the results*
thereof_.to be turned over to the Intervenor and the NRC Staff for veri.fication.
Resp.onses by the Applicant and NRC' Staff, dated December 3 and.15, 1980, respectively, opposed the granting*
of the Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration, or alternatively; for certification to the Commission..
. ~oV y
.~)1
e* -
The authority for the Boards decision to receiv~ further
. evidence, relating_to safety, in view of the recently noted fuel channel bowing is contained in the-Commission's regulations, including but not limited to the following:
10 CFR §2.718(e),
(j); 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, §§ V(d) (13)" V(g) (1).
The Board finds* no merit in Intervenor's contention that requiring further submission of evidence has "affected
_substantially the right of Intervenor to prove its case and severely prejudiced Intervenor's case.*".(Intervenor's-11/26/80 Motion for Reconsideration, etc. p. 1);
The Intervenor did*.
not favo:r the Board with any* support for this c.onclusion. *
- It.is noted.that the ftiel* channel assembly bowing phenonienon I
. does. not appear to relate to. any* of* Interienors contentions***
against modification of the spent fuel pool racks~. The Inter:..
venors right to explore and challenge Applicant's c_on_clusions regarding fuel channel.assembly bowing has not nor will it be limited in' any way.
Intervenor's Motion* for Certification to*. the Commis_sion is without merit~
The issue here; namely the-gran~ing of a motion' for continuance does ndt present major' or novel questions' '
of policy law or procedure.* Only such ques_tions may be certified to.*the Commission-.(10 CFR § 2. 785(d)
The ruling at issue here is an interlocutory procedural order, i.e., the
3 -
granting of a continuance.
The Appeal Board declines review
'of** such interlocutory procedural rulings.
In Public Service Company of Indiana Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Station, Uni ts 1 and 2) ALAB-393, 5 NRC 767 (1977);.Pen11sylvania Power and Light Company et al. (Susquehanna Electric Station; Units. 1 and 2)
ALAB-563, 10 NRC 449 (1979).
For. all of the foregoing reasons it is, this *22nd day* of December 1980 ORDERED That the. Intervenor's Motion for Reconsiderat~on, *or alternatively for certification to the Commission is denied.
. FOR THE. ATOMIC SAFETY AND.
LICE NS ING BOARD.