ML17272A705
| ML17272A705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1979 |
| From: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| To: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130388 | |
| Download: ML17272A705 (3) | |
Text
8 LAW OFFIC:CS OF DE8EVOIS E & Lf8ERMAN IGLOO SEVENTEENTH STCtCE.
N. 'rV.
WASH I NOTON, O. C. COOSS TELEPHONE 202) SST 95QC October 5, 1979 Robert M. Lazo, Esq.
Acting C>>a'rman Atomic Safety ace Licensing Board
- Panels, U. S. Nuclear R mxlatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matte of Nashington Public Power Supply System (bPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)
Docket No.
50-397-OL
Dear Dr. Lazo:
On Duly 26, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a Notice of Oppor unity for Hearing in the captioned >atter.
43 Fed.
Reg.
32338 (1978).
In response
- thereto, a Petition or Leave to Intervene dated Aucust 28,
- 1978, was iled by two individual petitioners on their own beha'tf and on behalf of a group ca'ling '"self the "Han=ord Conversion Project."
On iaauary 25,
- 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
("Board" ) established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene ccncucteQ a prehearing conference in which the Applicant, NFC Staf, the petit=oners for intervention, and the State cf Washington participated.
Thereafter, on March 6, 1979, Ae Board issued its "Order Subsequent to the Prehea=ing Ccnference on January 25, 1979," in which it concl ded. tl>t the petitioners had failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in support of intervention as a matter o right, and tha,t the peti ioners had not provided suf-ficient justification to support the granting of inter-vention as a mat er of discretion.
Accordingly, the Board 79$ $ $8Q
Robert M. Lazo, Esp.
October 5,
1979 Page Two denied the petition to intervene.
- However, since the course of potential appellate review remained available, the Board in its Order did not direct that the proceed-ings be terminated.
Petitioners did not appeal the Order of the Board denying intervention within the time prescribed in 10 C.F.R. 52.714a.
Further, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("Appeal Board" ) has not to date initiated a sua
~s onte review of the Board's Order.
Since
.seven months have elapsed since the Board's Order was issued, we assume that no sua ~scute appellate review will occur.
This assumption is supported by the Appeal Board's reference to the WNP-2 Order in Houston Lightin and Power Com anv (South Texas Project, Una.ts 1 and 2
I ALAB 549(
NRC g
(May 18, 1979) (slip opinion, at 7).
Prom the foregoing, it is clear that while the instant proceeding has been completed, it has not been officially terminated.
Since neither the Appeal Board nor the Licensing Board. has jurisdiction in this proceeding, it is appropriate and we recuest that the Chairman of the Licensing
- Board, Panel take such actions as are necessary to terminate the proce ding.
Respectfully submitted, DEBEVOZ E 6
LUMBERMAN Nichol Counse f
Reynolds the Applicant cc:
Elizabeth S.
- Bowers, Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Ernest E. Hill William D. Paton, Esq.
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis Thomas F. Carr, Escr.
Richard Q. Quigley, Esp.
Ms. Susan M. Garrett Doreen L. Nepom, Esp.
Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Mr. Gerald C.'orensen Mr. O. Keener Earle
4 l~~
1 j 4