ML20008G232

Notice of Appeal of ASLB Order Admitting Fairfield United Action as Late Intervenor

ML20008G232
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/08/1981
From:	Knotts J KNOTTS, J.B., SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20008G231	List: ML20008G230 ML20008G232 ML20008G234
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107020503
Download: ML20008G232 (2)

Text

_ -

l .

Date: May 8, 1981 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

In the Matter of:

-SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND )

GAS COMPANY, et al.

~- ~~

)

) Docket No. 50-395-07 (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1) )

APPLICANTS' NOTICE OF APPEAL l

PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. {2.714a l OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER ADMITTING FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION AS LATE INTERVENOR On April 30, 1981 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding in the captioned matter issued its " Partial Order Following Prehearing Conference (Admitting FUA on Contentions 1, 2, 7-13 and 27, and Denying FUA's Other

. Contentions)". Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.714a(a) and (c),

l l Applicants South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority (" Applicants") file this

! appeal presenting the question whether the extremely untime-ly petition of Fairfield United Action ("FUA") should have been wholly denied.

Briefly stated, this appeal presents the question whether this petition to intervene, filed 'our years late and within three months of the scheduled commencement of operating license hearings, should have been denied be-cause the Board below did not properly apply the applicable authorities and improperly assessed the good cause and delay factors, particularly in treating as good cause mid-1980

[81070 2 000h :

TMI requirements on emergency planning and management capability, and in minimizing delay and prejudice to other parties.

. Stated more starkly, and with all sincere respect to the Board below and for the NRC administrative process, this appeal presents the question whether Applicants are to be protected against extreme prejudice to their rights and severe econcmic consequences, as we thought was the rule recognized in the Appeal Board's 1975 North Anna and 1979 Skacit decisions (discussed in our supporting brief), or whether such rights are instead to be submerged at the behest of an articulate group which has slept on its rights.

The grounds for this appeal are more particularly set forth, along with relevant authorities, in our support-ing brief.

R pectfully submitted, r /

Js h B. Knotis, Jr.

Counsel for Applicants Date: May 8, 1981 l

y3 rw --w, --+w. ,-o.g -p.,,--.y , , ,,, , x.,,, - yg,n-v ---,.-- - , , m.--- ..,,- y -