ML19332A994
| ML19332A994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Schultz G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, GARY, IN |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8009190419 | |
| Download: ML19332A994 (3) | |
Text
s
+
4 M
CCCKETED
- \\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEP i 71980 >
USNEO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
0 my
/
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4
Branch Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
)
O In the Matter of
)
Sgp 17 @g
)
/
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-367
)
(Bailly-Generating Station, Nuclear 1)
)
(Construction Permit
)
Extension)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 17, 1980 Before this Board are the appeals of the City of Gary, Indiana, et al., and George Schultz from so muc:1 of the Licensing Board's August 7, 1980 special prehearing conference order as denied their petitions for leave to intervene in this ccnstruc-tion permit extension proceeding.
The two appeals present ets-sentially identical issues.
Accordingly, they are being consol-idated for purposes of consideration and disposition.
Upon preliminary examination of the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the appeals, at least one member of this Board has concluded that oral argument is warranted.
See Appen-dix A to 10-CFR Part 2,-Section IX(e).
Pursuant to the notice previously given the parties, S the argument will take place at y
See our September 2, 1980 memorandum.
gO D.54 800g1gg.
fll 9 6-
-.-m.
2-T 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 2,1980, in the NRC Public Hearing Room,'Fifth Floor, East-West Towers-Building, 4350
' East-Wsst Highway, Bethesda, - Maryland.
A total of one hour is allotted to each side for the presentation of argument. 2/
The_ appellants will be heard first and may reserve a-portion of their time for rebuttal.
.. j In preparing for argument, counsel may assume that the members of the Board will belfamilar with both the relevant portions of the record below (including the Licensing Board's August 7 order) and the positions of the parties on the ap-peals-(as developed in their briefs).
For this reason, there will-be no need for counsel-to devote any. portion of their argument _to a detailed recitation of the background of the
_2/ ' Dr. Schultz, who appears pro se, did not file a formal brief in support of his appeaII Rather, his notice of-appeal (in the form of a letter to this Board) merely stated, without extended discussion, his belief that (contrary to the conclusion reached by the Board below) the single contention advanced in his intervention peti-tion is appropriate for. consideration in this proceed-
'ing.:.Nonetheless, if so inclined, he may participate in the oral argument... Alternatively,'he may elect to stand on-his written submissionLand the oral argument which will be: presented on behalf of the City.of Gary,
-et.al.
Those appellants.are: represented by counsel, wEo Tiled a full brief on the common issues raised by the two appeals.
I be
...e s
- controversy.
Instead, counsel should proceed immediately to the questions before us for decision. 2/
The Secretary to this Board is to be notified, by letter mailed no later than September 26, 1980, of the names of the persons who intend to participate in the argument.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Q..L%s AA
\\
C. J(pn Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board This action was taken by the Appeal Board Chairman under 2.7d7 (b) (1).
--3/
In its August 7 order, the Licensing Board had determined that the appellants had standing to intervene; each peti-tion was denied on the quite discrete ground that the sin-gle contention contained therein was outside the scope of this proceeding.
On the appeals, both t.se NRC staff and
- ~
the' applicant' urge affirmance on the basis assigned by the Licensing Board.
In addition, however, the applicant (but not the staff) insists that the Licensing Board erroneously resolved the standing question in appellants ' favor.
Al-though it is 'our expectation that the major portion of the oral argument will be devoted to the ground of decision below, the parties no doubt will wish to touch upon the applicant's assertions on the standing matter as well.
,