ML20049K077
| ML20049K077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Bordenick B, Conner T, Kepford C, Silberg J CONNER & WETTERHAHN, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| References | |
| ALAB-668, NUDOCS 8203290378 | |
| Download: ML20049K077 (1) | |
Text
sc~ v v v D0ct;ET NUMBER
' PROD, & UTIL FAC,...v..p g
,#8rog
,4 g
UNITED STATES
~
m y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 4, g[ '
8 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL DOCKET h"'um
'Y' paar - rr" ~
' S,'4,,b
- ..s y
'82 mR 24 P2:02 p 00 &
IL FAC,,
rch 24, 1982 e-m Ti r;;; o
- ERAtR, Dr. Chauncey Kepford Troy B.
- Conner, Jr.,
Esquire 433 Orlando Avenue Conner & Wetterhahn State College, PA 16801 Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Jay E.
Silberg, Esquire Washington, D.C.
10006 Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esquire 1800 M Street, N.W.
Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C.
20036 Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
Consolidated Radon Proceedings
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of the memo-randum and order (ALAB-668) entered by the Appeal Board today in the Perkins proceeding.
Your attention is partic-ularly directed to footnote 3 on page 3.
Sincerely, o..
C.
Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board N
8 (b N N
Enclosure:
['
\\
ALAB-668 y
F;~^ 3iVUD 9\\
,,1 b
R 9 3 Jagg [to cc:
Docketing & Service Branch 1
y moLr;m?Y W" Cit
- n
- .,~~% ti
/8. fphhp/ q, a
ggd
$I \\
8203290378 E'JO324 PDR ADOCK 05000277 G
PDR 1
r' D
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL b...., 2d P 'd :,]
Administrative Judges:
{
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Moore SERVED hlAR 241982 3
In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
)
STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,
)
STN 50-490 2 and 3)
)
)
Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for the applicant, Duke Power Company.
Mr. William G.
Pfef ferkorn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the intervenors, Mary Apperson Davis and Yadkin River Committee.
Mr. Sherwin E. Turk for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER March 24, 1982
( ALAB-66 8 )
On March 2, 1982, the Duke Power Company filed identical motions with the Licensing Board and this Board seeking (1) leave to withdraw without prejudice its application for permits to con-struct the Perkins nuclear facility; and (2) a termination as moot of the still ongoing proceeding on that application.
The motion recites that Duke's Board of Directors voted on February 23, 1982 to withdraw the application.
1 Gs,v. :-
i l)v,i a.J
\\
The sought relief is not~ opposed by the NRC staff.
For their part, however, intervenors Mary Apperson Davis and Yadkin River Committee insist that the termination of the proceeding should be with prejudice.
Additionally, they maintain that, irrespec-tive of the basis of the termination, the applicant should "be required to pay all of the costs in this matter including the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the Intervenors".1-[
As the staff correctly notes, it is for the Licensing Board, before whom portions of this proceeding remain, to pass upon the mo-tion in-the first instance.
In doing so,'it will have to u ;ress the claims made by the intervenors initheir Fe'sponse.. With. regard to the question'whether:the termination of.the proceeding should be with prejudice ~ the Board is to apply the, qui _dancs provided by us in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657, 14 NRC 967 (1981), and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit l), ALAB-662, 14 NRC (December 7, 1981). 2/
_1/
Response to Motion to Withdraw, dated March 11, 1982, at p.
1.
--2/
In North Coast, we explicitly left open the question whether " conditioning withdrawal of an application upon payment of the opposing parties' expenses might be with-in the Commission's powers and otherwise appropriate where the expenses incurred were substantial and inter-venors developed information which cast doubt upon the merits of the application".
14 NRC at fn. 11.
We likewise do not intimate any opinion on the question here, believing that it should be first considered by the Board below.
/*>
^
Our own required action at this juncture is confined to three previously rendered partial initial decisions which have not achieved finality:
LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87 (1978); LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470 (1978); and LBP-80-9, 11 NRC 310 (1980).
Each of those decisions is hereby vacated on the ground of mootness.
See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-656, 14 NRC 965, 956 (1981), and cases there cited. 3,/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l
l l
CM-dh l
C. Jqhn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board l
l j3 /
Although stripping the partial initial decisions of any I
precedential effect, this action does not similarly serve to vitiate the testimony and other evidence contained in the record on the issue of the environmental effects as-sociated with the release of radioactive radon gas (radon-222) to the atmosphere as a result of the mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel.
We need stress the point because that record provided a portion of the basis for our decision in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-640, 13 NRC 4 87 (1981).
It may also be employed in connection with any future decisions in Peach Bottom on the radon issue.
See, in this connection, ALAB-654, 14 NRC 632, 634-35 (1981).
With regard to the now-vacated partial initial decision which dealt with the radon issue (LBP-78-25, supra), suf-fice it to say that none of the conclusions later reached by us in ALAB-640 depended for its vitality upon any de-termination of the Licensing Board in that decision.
Rather, as is clearly reflected therein, ALAB-640 repre-sents the fruits of our own independent analysis of the content of the Perkins record on radon releases taken in conj unction with additional evidence which was adduced in Peach Bottom.