ML20032D896
| ML20032D896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111180262 | |
| Download: ML20032D896 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:4 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hfer NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .[IfotyCSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD '81 $l 16 All :58 [ y' '.. :. h,e i_) M d.i.: b Before Administrative Judges: t.j N0g!3 f )ggy,Sh6.ldon J. Wolfe, Chairman ,.n';Gi;RETARY ERVICE pr. Walter H. Jordan ERANcH \\, u.5. g,'lcy " _/ Dr. Harry Foreman SERVED imy161981 b m Jf g ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 50-382-0L LOUISANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) ) (Waterford Steam Electric Station, ) November 13, 19f!1 Unit 3) ) ) ORDER 1. On October 15, 1981, Intervenor Louisiana Consumer's League (LCL) filed a Notice of Withdrawal From Proceeding.
- Therein, LCL moved for leave to withdraw its conte'ntions and to withdraw as a party.
Treating the Notice as a Motion Requesting Leave To Withdraw, the Board grants the Motion, dismisses LCL's contentions and dismisses LCL as a party. 2. On October 23, 1981, Joint Intervenors (Save Our Wetlands, Inc. and Oystershell Alliance, Inc.) filed a Motion For v luntary Dismissal Of Contentions. Therein, Joint Intervenors moved o (az, D92 offfjj$k 3 / P
l . for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of eleven of their contentions (1, 2, 12, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 29).l_/ They also moved for leave to file additional contentions, if appropriate, upon their compliance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 ( a)( 1). In a Response dated October 27, 1981, Applicant did not oppose the instant motion. In a Response dated November 12, 1981, while the NRC Staff did not oppose the requested dismissal of the eleven contentions, it objected to the granting of the request that the dismissal be with leave to file additional contentions upon compliance with 2.714 because that condition might be misinterpreted as implicit authorization for the future filing of additional contentions and because, in any event, the inclusion of that condition in the Board's Order would serve no useful purpose. The Staff's partial objection is well taken. Accordingly, the Joint Intervenors' motion is in part granted, to the extent that their eleven contentions, identified above, are dismissed with prejudice. - The balance of their motion is -1/ For some reason, the Joint Intervenors also moved to dismiss Contention 28. This was unnecessary, since our Memorandum and Order of September 30, 1981 had granted Applicant's motion to dismiss Contention 28. 2/ The Joint Intervenors' three contentions remaining to be litigated are Contentions 8 (consolidated with Contention 9 in the Order of September 12, 1979), 17 and 26. I
I. . denied as being superfluous. The provisions of 6 2.714(a)(1) clearly govern any future request by the Joint Intervenors to file any additional contentions. IT IS S0 ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD \\ Sheldon J. g.!fe ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i e =}}