ML20031G305
| ML20031G305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, LBP-81-44, NUDOCS 8110220159 | |
| Download: ML20031G305 (2) | |
Text
'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IED qg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B RD Administrative Judges:
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman C ETlHF SECREupy Dr. John H. Buck BRANC 8v#CE Christine N. Kohl
)
In the Matter of
))'
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 OL COMPANY ET AL.
)
)
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
)
g Unit 1)
)
p y-l 0
[l s
DCT2 21981EC ORDER i q y,s a u2x*To" M
g wsw s
i October 19, 1981
\\/
'h We have closely examined the Licensing Board's Oc w m 5,
1981 memorandum and order.
LBP-81-44, 14 NRC That exam-ination discloses a total failure on the part of that. Board to explicate the reasons why it cannot resolve the seismic issue before it on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties themselves.
See our memorandum (unpublished) of August 27, 1981 at p.
7.
Beyond that, the Board below devoted a signifi-cant part of its October 15 issuance to a critique of the con-tent of the August 27 memorandum.
That critique was neither invited nor appropriate.
In the circumstances, there is clear warrant for directing the certification to us forthwith of the merits of the seismic I
stio22o159 e11o19 b0 k PDR ADOCK 05000395 C
A issue.
See 10 CFR 2. 718 (i).
Doing so, however, would entail unacceptable delay in this, proceeding, as well as in other pro-ceedings currently before the members of this Board.
We are thus left with no practical alternative to allowing the Li-censing Board to pursue its proposed course notwithstanding I
(1) our conviction that that course has not been adequately
. justified, and (2) that Board's open and flagrant disregard of our instructions.
Accordingly, although not without merit, the staff's petition for directed certification must be derited.1/
In the interest of minimizing further delay in the progress of this proceeding, we are announcing our result at this time, i
A full explanation will be, set' forth in' a subsequent memorandum. -
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O_ W h LN C. JQ n BisTop T
Secretary to the Appeal Board l
-1/
That petition did not ask us to assume jurisdiction over the merits of the seismic issue but, rather, merely sought review of the Licensing Board's preposed use of independent i
consultants a.1 Board witnesses.
As indicated in the text above, it was the Licensing Board's October 15 memorandum and order which suggected the warrant for granting broader relief'sua sponte.
l
. ~
.....