ML19289C185
| ML19289C185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1978 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812140337 | |
| Download: ML19289C185 (2) | |
Text
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO'01ISSION 4
/\\,
8 g
o ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
f.,M 4)
T b
p' Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman b~
6
[g Dr. John H. Buch 9g -
Michael C. Farrar e
/
)
In-the Matter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 OL COMPANY
)
50-339 OL
)
(North Anna Nuclear Power
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER December 7, 1973 The inclination of a majority of this Board is to deny the motion of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to file an additional brief amicus curiae.
As the NRC staff correctly 1/
notes in its opposition to the motion, it had set forth in its September 15 filing with this Board its present position that resolution of the turbine missile question in this proceed-ing need not await the completion of the generic consiceration of that question.
This being so, UCS both could and should have responded to that position in the brief amicus curiae which, with our leave, it submitted for the express purpose of addressing the staff's September 15 filing.
_1/
The applicant also cppoccc the motion.
b 7 81214 0 3N3'7 Although acknowledging this fact, Mr. Farrar is not.etheless desirous to afford UCS a second, albeit belated,opcortunity to tell us why it believes that the turbine missile cuestion cannot be resolved for the North Anna facility independently of the outcome of the generic incuiry.
In his view, it is at least possible that UCS may be able to shed some light on the matter.
For this reason, he believes that we should now hear what UCS has to say, even though it should have been said in the earlier brief amicus curiae.
In deference to Mr. Farrar's wishes, the Board majority joins him in authorizing the filing by UCS of a supplemental amicus curiae brief no later than December 14, 1973.
The brief shall be confined to the single point referred to in UCS' notion as identified above.
The applicant and the MEC staff may respond, if so inclined, within one week of the receipt of the brief.
It is sc ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL 30.'.RD
'hmA F Add dhfo
' Ma[garet E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
.