ML19269C091
| ML19269C091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1979 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901220371 | |
| Download: ML19269C091 (4) | |
Text
.
N2C Pt?J 'O "T' INT ROOM A %
s
-m, e
e
.%.~.
- 3. -
t*.
U.,,,. / O...m. L J,, ~
.1.L a O..
V.
. - c.'.. n -..-./.
.,,f
,..r...
3 m mm 3, Wi Wl.g se U vb;;
J t !A.1 v.%.
pg N
/s/
.,..c-.,
/'f e-~-y
- - -.. ~....
3.-. r -.. -....
. - _.....,..,, ga...... g
- u..
s..
. v..
g I~
~
Alan 3.
Rosenthal, Chairman I. "
JAN 15 ;,1 >'-!
i.-4 s.1c,c v, a,
.r -2 u.-
e, Dr.
Jo...n h.
3 5 -
- -~>
a
.J'. ; h a a l,. " 2_~ r . r
. (' '
V.rrN.. L
'T
~
, N tte \\
)
~a the :.atter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket ;;os. STN 50-522 COUPANY, et _al.
)
50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ME::ORANDUM AND ORDE2 January 12, 1979 We have before us the applicants' appeal from the i
. ova.. ar v,,
13,.3 cra.er or cne
' c:: sing a,carms alicwing the late intervention of thrac Indian trihas in this con-1/
struction permit proceeding.-
It has come to our attention that the Licensing Board is to c.ald a planning conferenca
'eit'. all counsel early ne:ct wee::.
In order to assist that Board in its undertaking we are announcing our decision on the intervention appaal not.
A:. opinion stating our reasons will be issued a a later time.
He are vacating the ordar granting incar;untica and remanlinc the c.uas tion for furti.2r consideration.
He aust Jo this bacaura, in grar. ting intervantion, tha Occ.rd belo,.'
_/
- r u nr_.
.a lu ;
.._2 5 cn t;'.e appeal o., ::O nda.;
c:
z...,
- 2...
790122031\\
f 4
--2 paid too little att2ntion to the controllic.: criteria set forth in the Con.7issior.'s reg;1ation2.
'lthough it did 2atica the; 2 critoria, it di' 33 onl; in c27aral terns and cc.ly while relying primarily cn the belief that thei did not apply ir. view of petitioners' status as Indians.--2/
This belief -- which, as we will explain in our forthcoming opinion, was erroneous -- infected the Board's entire decision, and prevents us from discerning its views on precisely how the circumstances of the case fit in with the terms of the 3/
Commission's regulations.--
As a result, the Board must now reconsider the inter-vention petition,this time deternining, first, whether the Indian tribes had a good excuse for their late filing and, second, how the other factors relevant to late intervention-petitions weigh in the balanca ~~4/
n this regard -- as we have stressed before and as remains true under the revisad I
j2 /
- See, e.g.,
Levamaer 24th order, p.
17.
i i
~~3/
Thus, our ruling should not he taken as evidencing either epproval or disapproval of the result the Licensing Eoard reached.
It is as frea to grant intervention i
(or to deny it) as it was initially.
I
._'/
Ue do not maan to imply that the petitioners' stetus cannot be taken into account in evaluating their intersst (which is unchallenged) and each of the criteria relevant to belated petitions; cf course it may ce, to whataver 2xtent it is seen to cor.e into play.
But the Board was wrong aa according the tribes an unsolicitea and clanket "praferential status" said to cause the "fcctcrs recited in the Conr.ission's regulations" to "yiall to tr.e T alic interest. "
(3ee
!!ovember 24th order, pp.
1)_.
6 regulations -- the be: tar the excuse for the belatedness, the 12sc that needs 'e sho.n on the other four factors to n
J us tif-- intervention.--5/Ue ' eave this analisis :: the Liceris_ar accrd in tha first instance, in:icating n: opinion on it ourselves, because its tiro technical narbers enjoy a
.2
/
working knowledge of the intricacies of this proceading.
This should enable the Board below, more readily than us, to come quickly to grios with the c.arties' contradictor.r interpretations of what has gone before and how that history, as well as the expected future course of the proceeding, bears on the controlling criteria.
So, too, that Board is in the better position initially to relate any new develop-ments in the proceeding (see, e.g.,
p.
21 of the t. 'vember 24th crder) to the particular contenticns sought to la advanc.ed by the petitioners.
j_/
- 223, e.g.,
Florida Por,ar & Licht Company (St. Lucie Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 WRC d, 22 (1977) (petition to intervene in antitrust proceeding thirty-one months late; we reiterated that "where th; lateness has been satisfactorily explained a nuch c: aller demonstration en these f actors is necessary") ; affirmed, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939 (197G).
--6/
The Chairnan of the 3 card below retired after the release of the order granting intervention and has since been replaced.
- 4, -
It is so 0:tDERED.
- FOR THE APPEAL 3 ARD
)?
wh)A Marg ret E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
- Chairman Rosenthal concurred in the substance of this decision and in the timing of its release, but did not review the wording of this memorandum.
F e