ML19344D794
| ML19344D794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham, Midland File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1971 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007070420 | |
| Download: ML19344D794 (2) | |
Text
'
i; r,,, <
..J h N
m f
O y~
^
COCKE t4UMGE.4 I
SEP 2 0 E, * [5 Pilco. & urii, tzc. 5M2'7,$30 A
r.= o es :ama q
r.m trew C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
s ATOMIC EilERGY COMMISSI0ll ej, tt0RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g
g
) h{
.w In the Matter of
)
IE 4197 i
CONSUMERS POWER COMPA.'!Y
)
DocketNoh0 hh U.S-((E$gtI
)-
au - J.$U E%gra (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
g RESP 0flSE OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO MAPLETON INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER DENYING l'0 TION TO DISMISS APPLICATI0tl i
.In a " Notice of Appeal," dated September 2,1971, the Mapleton intervenor's1/ appealed 'to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) from an order of the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board (ASLB) in this " proceeding, dated August'26, i971, in which the ASLB denied a totion of the Mapleton intervenors, dated August 9, 1971,2_/ to' dismiss.the application which is the subject of this v\\.
proceeding.
Since no initial decision has been issued by the ASLB in this pro-ceeding, the Mapleton intervenors appeal from the ASLB order is clearly an interlocutory appeal within the meaning of 10 CFR S 2.730(f) of, the Commission's " Rules of Practice" which provides in pertinent part that "[n]o interlocutory appeal may be taken to the Connission from a ruling of the presiding officer." Because an Appeal Board
?
t i
\\,
t, if Aeschliman et al.
y P/ l n their nntire of appeal, the M.ipleton intervene. refer to i
s lg y their motion to ilismbs the application as their "mol. ion ol' August 3,1971." We assume that this reference 'is incorrect since our, copy of the motion to dismiss is dated August 9,1971.
80 07070 8
g
_,n a
w
p-p j'..]~,
w
.has been established in this proceeding to exercise the authority i
and review functions that would othentisd have been e/ercisert by the Commission, the provisions of 10 CFR 5 2.730(f) prohibit an anpeal
.such as this to the Appeal Board.
The Appeal Board in the Shoreham proceeding dismissed similar typesof appeals on the grounds that they were interlocutory and thus barred under the provisions of 10 CFR 5 2. 730( f). -l l
Accordingly, we believe that the Appeal Board should dismiss the l
Mapleton intervenors appeal on the ground that it is interlocutory and thus. barred under the provisions of 10 CFR s 2.730(f).
If, however, the appeal were to be. considered on its merits, we believe that it should be denied for the reasons stated in our " Answer of
~ AEC Regulatory Staff.to Mapleton Intervenors' itotion to Dismiss Application," dated August 19, 1971.
Respectfully submitted, lth M y* f C L
l' i
David E. Psartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff 7:-
_ Dated a)d Bethesda,. Maryland, this /6,t day of September,1971.
l' t
3/..See Appeal Board " Order" dated June 23,1970, and "feemorandum and Order" dated September I,1970, in lho M.if ter of I nny Island Lighting Conpany (Shoreham fluclear l'ower 7t'asiian,'l6iliT), ~
Docket flo. 50-322.
w