ML20058E157
| ML20058E157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-683, NUDOCS 8207280077 | |
| Download: ML20058E157 (2) | |
Text
..
COLVETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U"C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 127 P3:29 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Off'CE OF SEv $ldr Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman 00CXtijngg3pl BRANCH
)
SERVED'JUL271982 In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. 50-522
_E T _A L.
)
50-523
)
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Mr. Terence L.
Thatchar, Portland, Oregon, for the intervenors, National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
~
July ~27, 1982
( ALAB-6 8 3)
In a July 6, 1982 memorandum and order (unpublished), the Licensing Board ruled on the admissibility of, inter alia, the contentions jointly advanced by the intervenors National Wild-life Federation and Oregon Environmental Council in this con-struction permit proceeding.
Although several were admitted to the proceeding, Contention 5 was rejected.
The intervenors seek to appeal that rejection under 10 CFR 2.714a.
Their appellate papers also complain of what they deem to have been the implicit rejection of one of the bases assigned for accepted Contention 3.
It would appear that intervenors' counsel has not read Section 2.714a with care.
By its express terms, that Section Y
O 9 ()
P h
i
. permits a person to take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his or her intervention petition only in circumstances where, unlike here, the order has the effect of denying the peti-tion in its entirety.
Accordingly, the appeal at bar must be, and hereby is, summarily dismissed.
Texas Utilities Generating Co.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-599, 12 NRC 1, 2 (1980), and cases there cited. E It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN b,
MDee _,c A-s C. JQn Slfo~emaker Secretary to the Appeal Panel This action was taken by the Appeal Panel Chairman under the authority of 10 CFR 2.787(b).
_1_/
If intervenors are dissatisfied with the initial decision ultimately rendered by the Licensing Board in the pro-ceeding, they will be' entitled to take an appeal from it under 10 CFR 2.762(a).
On that appeal, they will be free to raise the matter of the Licensing Board's threshold treatment of Contentions 3 and 5.