ML19254D129
| ML19254D129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1979 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220419 | |
| Download: ML19254D129 (4) | |
Text
.
h?,C PLOLIC DCCMIEWI RODM c.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
313i2y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPE2.L BOARD 0C3 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
~fgj.
Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar
/j,4 4
os
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400'
)
50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4)
)
50-403
)
MEMORANTsUM October 12, 1979 In its supplemental initial decision issued on July 13,
- 1979, 1/ the Licensing Board concluded that the construction i
permits previously issued for the four units of the Shearon Harris nuclear facility "should be conditioned to require that
[the applicant Carolina Power and Light Company] demonstrate in a public hearing during the operating license proceeding that it is then or timely will be technically qualified to operate Shearon Harris safely".
10 NRC at (slip opinion,
- p. 9).
In o:her words, the Board determined that, with respect to the management capability or technical qualifications issue,
_1_/
LBP-79-19, 10 NRC II93 234 ir910210
. the public interest required a hearing at the operating license stage.
Id. at (slip opinion, p. 124); see 10 C.F.R. 2.104 (a).
It embodied its determination in the fol-lowing condition (pi. at (slip opinion, p.
125)):
At an appropriate time during the review of the application for the operating li-cense of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the Staff shall implement the nec-essary actions to enable the Secretary to issue a notice of hearing on said applica-tion to be published in the Federal Register required under 10 CFR 92.104.
In addition to the other requirements of 92.104, the notice of hearing shall state that the presiding officer will consider (in addi-tion to any other matter which may be in controversy) whether the Applicant has the management capability and is technically qualified to engage in the activities to be authorized by the operating license in ac-cordance with the regulations of 10 CFR Chapter 1.
The NRC staff filed an exception to that condition on the ground that it was in excess of the Licensing Board's
" jurisdiction and authority".
The brief in support of that exception was filed and served on September 4, 1979. 2 /
The time provided by 10 CFR 2.762(b) for the filing and service of responsive briefs has now expired.
!cne of the
_2 /
In that brief, the scaff also discussed (as requested by us in an August '. order) its standing to complain of the condition in issue.
We have now tentatively concluded that the staff dces have such standing.
We will address t2at point in our later opinion Zevoted to the merits of the appeal.
1 *, O 7 5G:
1 i/J
!JJ
. other parties to the proceeding chose to submit such a brief (although the applicant did advise us by letter, without elaboration, that it regards the staff's exception to be well-taken).
Thus, the staff's attack upon the Licensing Board's action has gone unanswered.
It does not necessarily follow, of course, that the staff is right in arguing that the Board below exceeded its authority.
Contest or not, it remains our obligation to de-cide the question.
In discharging this responsibility (and particularly in light of the absence of a contest), it would be helpful to have at hand the considerations which led the Licensing Board to conclude that it peasessed the authority to impose the condition in issue.
Although the Board did not
'explicitly so state in the supplemental initial decision, it obviously must have been satisfied that such authority existed.
Indeed, it may reasonably be inferred from the Board's election to address specifically the authority question that it not thought the matter to be free of all doubt.
Accordingly, we new invite the Board to furnish us with its views.
In recognition of the fact that its members may well have existing ccmmitments of a pressing nature,- / and 3
3/
Among other things, the Chairman of the Boar:i below is also the Chairman of the Licensing Board recently con-vened in the new proceeding involving Unit No. 1 of the Three Mile Island facility.
g r-e l k h -),
(_ ) U
. the additional fact that the appeal before us seemingly need not receive urgent resolution, 4/ we do not ask for those views by any particular date.
We have no doubt that the Board will supply them as soon as practicable given the other matters which require the prompt attention of its members.
FOR THE APPEAL BO,LE 5
C. Jeg Bishop Secrethry to the Appeal Board 4/
It likely will be some time before the Shearen Harris facility will be ready for consideration for an operating license.
I i () j 2b/
-