ML19330A205
| ML19330A205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1972 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150974 | |
| Download: ML19330A205 (2) | |
Text
-
Tms DOCUMENT C0t POOR quAUTY PM j
_l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATCMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
- 3 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 '
)
v 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AEC RECUIA7 CRY STAFF'S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF APPEAL BY
}%PLETON INTERVENGS FROM THE MEMORANDUM AND CRDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD DATED JULY 19. 1972.
- 1. On July 19, 1972, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a Memorandum and Order affirming an order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated March 10, 1972, and denying certification of that order to the Comission. The Licensing Board's order had concluded that certain issues concerning the nuclear fuel cycle are outside the scope of this proceeding.
- 2. On August 9,1972, Mapleton intervenors filed a " Notice of Appeal" from the Appect Board's decis.on of July 19, 1972.
- 3. Such " Notice of Appeal" is in direct contravention of the Commission rule concerning review of decisions and actions of the Acomic Safety and Liccasing Appeal Board,10 CFR 6 2.786, which states in subsection (b):
"Xo paii.tica or Or.her request for Ccmission review of.:n Appeal Board's dec.isi a or ce;; ion will be t.nterta*c.. d by the Cct. iccicn."* T;terefo.e, this appeal should be denied.
- The only provision in the Commission's rules for review of a decision of an Appeal Board is that contained in subsecrion (a) of section 2.766, which provides, in certain circumstances, for review by the Comission on its o n motion within 15 days after the date of an Appeal Board decision.
We note that in this case the 15-day period has expired.
.80 071gg p
- 4. Should the Comission nevertheless consider the appeal on its merits, the AEC Regulatory staff believes the order of the Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board is correct in result and should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted, Ti,"(lf bl l' b4f
(
David Kartalia Counsel for the AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of August,1972.
I e