ML20045E186
| ML20045E186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-012, SECY-A-80-12, NUDOCS 9307010228 | |
| Download: ML20045E186 (4) | |
Text
-
t UNITED STATES NUCl. EAR REQULATORY COMMISSION ADJU DIC ATORY ITEM SECY-A-80-1R January 25, 1980_
COMMISSIONER ACTION-The Commissioners g:
James A. Fitzgerald, Assistant General Counsel From_:
l REVIEW OF ALAB-576 (In the Matter of Sacramento
Subject:
Municipal Utilities District)
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station' Facility:
Review Time Excires:
February 11, 1980 To inform the Commission of a minor procedural' M ,-
Purpose:
decision The restart of Rancho Seco, in the af termath of the post-TMI corrective actions required of B&W Discus sion_:
is the subject of a proceeding now
- reactors, The California underway before a Licensing Board.
a participant in that Energy Commission (CEC),
proceeding, requested that emergency planning be The included in the scope of the proceeding.and at the Licensing Board denied CEC's request, behest of CEC, referred the issue to the Appeal Board, which requested brief s from the parties.
On January 14, 1980, CEC moved to terminate the referral, stating that recent NRC actions (a proposal for rulemaking on emergency planning, and the scheduling of a series of meetings with state and local officials) had satisfied their concerns in this area.
In ALAB-576, the Appeal
. Board accepted CEC's request and terminated the In so doing, it stated explicitly that referral.
its action reflected no judgment on the correct-ness of the Licensing Board decision below.
q In our view, lnforc2tica in this tecc'd v;:S Md
'n 0;Wd:::e w:th the iteg>n g my s'
htt. ucy cng f01L _Q -f,Jl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
act:
Crane, OGC 4
J O
hO g 930337 GILINSK92-436 PDR
t, 2
4 Recommendations f
1 r
b Ya{me,.-..ysA.Pihigerald vAssistant General Counsel
Attachment:
ALAB-576 Comissioners' coments should te provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.
Friday, February 8,1980.
Comission Staff office coments, if any, should be submitted to the.Comissioners NLT February 1,1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat 4
i M
b.
ce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p
Q.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
- $'$'[Y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 6-3p$'2>
~;
Richard S. Salzman, Chairman B
Dr. Johh H. Buck Y(h Thomas S.
Moore b
e m
e, _
) AN 2 2 Iggg
- GTD W
In the Matter of
)
SACRAME !TO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312 (SP)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station ))
)
Messrs. Christopher Ellison, Sacramento,' California, D.
C.,
for and Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Washington, the California Energy Commission, intervenor.
Messrs. Gerald Charnoff, Thomas A. Baxter and Lex K.
Larson, Washington, D.
C.,
for the Sacramento Municipal District, licensee.
Stephen'H. Lewis for the Nuclear Regulatory Mr.
Commission staff.
I MEMORANDUM AND
- ORDER January 21, 1980 (ALAB-576)
~
)
On December 14, 1979 at the behest of the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Licensing Board referred for
)
our consideration its ruling that CEC's contentions on emergency planning would not be considered in this special proceeding.
LBP-79-33, 10 NRC __.
We accepted the referral 1980 to b'rief the
'and allowed the parties until January 14, a
4 b
J
CEC no ted that we terminate cuestion.
On that date, however, action on the referral.
The basis for its motion is the announcement by this Commission of its proposal to undertake a ruleraking proceeding on the subject of energency planning and its scheduling cf a series of meetings with state and officials (including one in California) local government looking toward that end.
The motion to terminate our consideration of the referred cuestion is granted.
This action renders it unnecessary for
~
reached by us to decide either the correctness of the result rested that result.
the Board below or the grounds upon which it Dismissed without prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR TF.E APPEAL BOARD b.b4 C. Je Q Eishop h
SecretNry to t,e Appeal Board s
I i
l l
-