ML20054J604
| ML20054J604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUAANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206290328 | |
| Download: ML20054J604 (4) | |
Text
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BO RD t
Administrative Judges:
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Moore 2
SERVED JUN 9199?
)
In the Matter of
)
)
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-482 OL
_ET A_L.
)
)
(Wolf Creek Generating Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
Mr. Jchn M.
Simpson, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, for the appellant, Kansans for Sensible Energy.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER June 28, 1982 Kansans for Sensible Energy (KASE) was granted leave to intervene in this operating license proceeding o. the strength of a single contention which concerned the applicant's financial qualifications. b!
Effective March 31, 1982, the Commission
_/
Specifically, the contention asserted that:
1 Due to increased and underestimated costs, the Applicant does not have the financial ability to either operate or decommission the Wolf Creek facility.
See June 3, 1981 Special Prehearing Conference Order, at p.
8.
~
8206290328 820628
~
{DRADOCK 05000482 j~ ) d b PDR
e amended its regulations to remove financial qualifications is-sues from, inter alia, ongoing proceedings involving operating license applications such as the one at bar.
47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982).
In the wake of this development, both the applicants and the NRC staff moved for dismissal of the KASE contention.
Because such action would leave that inter-venor without a remaining contention, the dismissal of KASE as a party to the proceeding was also sought.
In an unpublished order entered on June 9, the Licensing Board granted the motions in their entirety.
KASE appeals.
1.
KASE does not dispute that, as written, the amended financial qualifications rule required the dismissal of its sole contention and, thus, the organization itself.
Ra the r, on appeal it simply renews its argument below that the elimina-tion of consideration of financial qualifications issues in reactor licensing proceedings contravenes the Atomic Energy 2
Act.- /
As the. Licensing Board correctly observed, however, it is not empowered to entertain such a challenge to the legality of a Commission regulation.
Neither are we.
10 CFR 2.758; see also,. Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear j2 /
KASE's appellate papers also refer to the National En-vironmental Policy Act.
O Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 89-90 (1974).
2.
For the foregoing reason, we ordinarily would sum-marily affirm the order below, leaving it to KASE to press its invalidity claim before the Commission, which obviously does possess the authority to consider it.
It has come to our attention, however, that on May 24, KASE and several other organizations filed a petition for review of the amended fi-nancial qualifications rule in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
New England Coalition on Nuclear Polluticn, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al. (No.
'82-1581).
As we understand it, that petition challenges the rule on essentially the same ground as KASE endeavors to assert be fore us.
~
In these circumstances, the preferable course appears to be a withholding cf final action on the appeal at hand for a reasonable period to accommodate possible judicial action in the interim.- !
Accordingly, the appeal will be held in abey-ance pending further order of this Board,
--3/
In reaching this conclusion, we of course imply no be-lief regarding the merits of KASE's attack upon the amended rule or the likelihood that it will obtain judicial relief.
O 4
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD M
at C.
J n Shoemaker Secre ary to the Appeal Board 9
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _