ML19305A225
| ML19305A225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R, Knotts J, Roisman A DUKE POWER CO., National Resources Defense Council, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A224 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903020202 | |
| Download: ML19305A225 (4) | |
Text
\\
/,
~
S s/ kb Y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.l*[
- ff V *r,. ;4#
s BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEA
/
M @ **
In The Matter Of
' ' ' " ~ '
DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
STIPULATION On February 9, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board placed a conference call with counsel for Duke Power Company (Applicant), Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) and Petitioner, Natural Resources Defense Council (MICC) for the purpose of discussing the possible settlement of the issue of NRDC's standing to intervene herein.
The Appeal Board advanced a proposal which was not acceptable to the parties.
However, during discussion of the Appeal Board proposal, the parties agreed to consider among themselves whether there was a basis for agreement.
Thereafter, the parties, in a conference call of the same date, identified a possible resolution of the matter.
The contents of this resolution are set forth below:
1.
In the interest of expediting this proceeding, NRDC and the Staff agree that NRDC should be afforded discretionary intervention.
NRDC withdraws its claim for standing as a matter of right.
This agreement is limited to this proceeding and should not be considered as precedent.
The Applicant has 7903020EOL
2 an obviously strong interest in expediting this proceeding; however, it does not join in the agreement between NRDC and the Staff.
Rather, Applicant reiterates the position set forth in its November 8, 1979, Memorandum of Law on NRDC's standing wherein it stated "with respect to discretionary interve.ntion, applicant hereby withdraws its opposition to such which is contained in the September 5, 1978 answer of applicant to petitions to intervene."
2.
The parties agree that the statements made at the October 24, 1978, Prehearing Conference and the comments con-tained in the Affidavit of Kenneth E.
Bossong, submitted by NRDC on October 26, 1978, both of which make reference, on a preliminary basis, to alleged harrassment by Applicant directed to discrediting anti-nuclear activists, should not be viewed as evidence that Applicant has so harrassed anyone.
- Further, this stipulation is not to be read as an admission by Duke Power-Company of the validity of such allegations regarding past or potential harrassment.
3.
Staff and the Applicant reaffirm their objections to the admissibility of certain of NRDC's contentions (other than on grounds of interest) as articulated in their papers filed below.
1/
Applicant has elaborated on its views in this regard in Attachment A hereto which is appended for convenient reference but does not form a part of the stipulation of the parties.
- e s
3 4.
The parties a' gree that NRDC's participation as a discretionary intervenor will be limited, as recognized by the Commission in Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1
-4 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976),
and subsequent cases.
For example, NRDC's direct evidence, discovery, cross-examination, findings of fact, legal arguments, and appeals will be confined to the issues it advances and which are admitted as contentions by the Licensing Board.
5.
The parties agree that this settlement remains in ef fect until the expiration of the time within which NRDC is now scheduled to file its appeal and supporting brief, to wit, February 20, 1979.
See the Appeal Board's February 7,
- 1979, Memorandum and Order entered in this proceeding.
In the event the '.ppeal Board has not acted on the stipulation by such time, the stipulation will become null and void and the parties will follow the briefing schedule provided in 10 CFR S 2.714a.
Natural Resources Defense Council Dated:
February 12, 1979
/
IY
,W
,< ~
hy/ Anthony Z.
Rolsman y
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff
/
Let g by Duke Power Company
^
g
\\
YWr ', C -- c w l?----
/
3 - '~
by Joseph B.
Knotts, Jr.
Debevoise & Liberman
'1% 0 17th Street, N.W.
- 4 9
36
i
-_s\\
%sy v
c6 9
<R
- 1 Nh c,.
../> H) 4 N
Q 7,.
i ^.V hw
"%%,-Q /{.J v s,
y U
/
, i APPLICANT'S ATTACHMENT "A" TO STIPULATION Despite Applicant's position, as well as the similar position of NRDC and the Staff, the Licensing Board's own review of thematter led it to deny discretionary intervention.
Applicant cannot argue that it was improper for the Licensing Board, whose discretion is, after all, what is involved, to make its own independent assessment nor that the Licensing Board abused that discretion in determining that NRDC was not entitled to discretionary intervention status.
In light of these considerations, Applicant questions whether it can stip-ulate to discretionary intervention status for NRDC.
In other words, Applicant is concerned that perhaps the Licensing Board's ruling cannot be overcome merely by stipulation of the parties but rather necessitates a ruling by the Appeal Board.
Applicant will be guided by the Appeal Board's action in this regard.