ML19274D746
| ML19274D746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1979 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902220256 | |
| Download: ML19274D746 (4) | |
Text
..
Wr
/
\\
,_ -A'
._..,,,__w--*-
UNITED STATES OF AMEPICA CDwSC lb B \\9~g7 I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPl4ISSION
-5 g
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman gg C7,qh+s e
g Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel M
c3
)
In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment of Materials License SNM-1773
)
for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel
)
Transportation and Storage at McGuire
)
Nuclear Station)
)
)
Mr. Anthcny Z.
Roisman, Washington, D.C.,
for the petitioner, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Messrs. J. Michael McGarry, III, Washington, D.
C.,
and William L.
Porter, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the applicant, Duke Power Company.
Mr. Edward G. Ketchen for the NRC staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER February 7,
1979 On January 9, 1979, the Licensing Board entered a supplemental order in which it denied the petitions for leave to intervene filed in this license amendment pro-ceeding by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Davidson Chapter of the North Carolina Public
%}
CO Interest Research Group (Davidson). -~1/
An appeal has been C
h) 1/
On Fecruary 6, 1979, the Commission specifically ff delegated its review authority in the proceeding
~~
q) to an appeal board.
Such a specific delegation was q) necessary because the general delegation contained in 10 CFR 2.785 (a) is applicable solely to proceed-ines which, unlike this one, are on applications under 10 CFR Part 50
~ taken from that order by Davidson.
For its part, NEDC filed objections to the order with the Licensing Board and moved for an extension of the time within which to file an cppeal tc the later of the following two dates:
(1) the 21st day after the Licensing Board ruled on the NRDC objections; and (2) the 10th day after a different Licensing Boari ruled on an NRDC petition for leave to intervene in another case said similarly to involve a proposed license amendment authorizing the shipment of spent fuel between facilities owned and operated by the same utility.--2/
The objections were denied in an order entered by the Licensing Board on February 2.--3/
Thus, a grant of the relief sought by the motion would allow NRDC to defer the filing of its appeal to at least February 23 and, depending upon when a ruling in Commonwealth Edison were
_2/
Ccmmonwealth Edison Co. (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3 and Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254 and 50-265.
_3/
Because the objections were served on the parties by mail on February 5, the appeal pericd now begins to run on February 10 and expires on February 20.
See 10 CFR 2.710 and 2.714a, as amended effective May 26, 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 17798, 17301, 17802 (April 26, 1978).
, 4/
to issue, very possibly to a considerably later date.--
Inadequate justification has been assigned by NRDC for an extension of such uncertain and potentially large dimensions.
To begin with, it may be that, as NEDC suggests, the issue which its appeal will raise is both novel and of recurring importance.
At the same time, however, the issue appears to be quite narrow in scope and, additionally, it was fully briefed below.
In the circumstances, there is no discernible reason why NRDC 5/
should not be able to perfect its appeal by February 20.
-~
Nor is there apparent merit to NRDC's further sugges-tion that the filing of its appeal can abide the event of a Licensing Board ruling in Commonwealth Edison without work-ing possible undue prejudice to other parties to the instant proceeding.
True, the Board below will be free to conmence
_4,/
As the NRDC motion noted, the Cctmonwealth Edison Licensing Board had scheduled a prehearing conference for February 1.
Although the conference was actually held on that date, there is no basis for assuming that the ruling necessarily will be rendered before the end of this month.
The members of that Board undcubtedly have other responsibilities.
Beyond that, they may find that a close study of the issues before them is required.
With all due allowance fer the obvious desirability of an expeditious determination of intervention petitions, it does not appear that a three or four week interval between the conference and the decision would be at all unreasonable in the circumstances of the Commonwealth Edison case.
_5,/
See fn.
3, sucra.
~, the evidentiary hearing prior to the issuance of our decision on NRDC's appeal.
Should, however, that appeal prove successful, it might well then prove necessary to start the hearing anew to allow NRDC's participation.
That being so, the applicant (which opposes the extension) --6/
has every right to insist that the appeal be timely filed and acted upon as prcmptly as feasible. --7/
In this connec-tion, it is difficult to understand MRDC's seeming belief that, by challenging the sufficiency of the petition for intervention, the applicant forfeited any entitlement to have the matter ultimately resolved in an expeditious manner.
The NRDC motion for an extension of time to file an appeal is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIR WI nnA&t.L Margapet E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Panel
_jf The NRC staff does not object to a short extension but does oppose an indefinite one.
_ly' As a matter of general practice, appeal boards give priority to appeals under 10 CFR 2.714a, particularly if the challenge is to an order denying leave to intervene.
This action was taken by the Appeal Panel Chairman under the authority of 10 CFR 2.787(b).