ML20067A090

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Disagrees W/Nrc Decision to Treat Monroe County,Mi as Appeal Under 10CFR2.714a Rather than Under 2.762.NRC Does Not Have Authority to Decide Issues for Aslab
ML20067A090
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/26/1982
From: Minock J
CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT, MINOCK, J.
To: Eilperin S, Gotchy R, Moore T
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8212010191
Download: ML20067A090 (2)


Text

3 .

a. :!- _

00CMETET' UMLRC

'82 NDY 30 All:40 JH4 R. MINOCK, Esq.

305 Mapleridge i.TTRE Or satty Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 oCCXETiriG 4 service BRANCH November 26, 1982 Stephen Ellperin, Esq. .

Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 re: In Re Detroit Edison Co.

Docket No. 50-341

Dear Sirs:

Today I received from Detroit Edison's Washington counsel a copy of a letter to you and Edison's Brief in Opposition to Appeal. In the letter. you,are advised that the Staff has decided that Monroe County's letter of November 8,1982, will be treated as an appeal under 10 CFR 2.714a rather than under 2.762.

This is certainly news to me. I was unaware that the Staff had the authority to decide issues for the Appeal Board. The question of which section governs the County's appeal is confusing because the two sections are somewhat contradictory.

2.714a seems to set up an accelerated interlocutory appeal where a party has been denied intervenor status in order to not delay the licensing hearing. Here the denial came as part of the Initial Decision, wherein the panel advised all parties of the time limits of 2.762 in which to take an appeal.

4. Furthermore, CEE responded to the County's letter as though it were a Motion for Extension of Time (see CEE Answer mailed November 21,1982), because that appeided to be the relief the County was requesting. CEE definitely intends to. file a timely answer on the merits of the County's appeal as soon as it is clear which section governs. CEE's Answer of November 21, 1982 requested such direction from the

..~

Appeal Board because of the possible running of time limits. For example, if the County's appeal is under 2.714a, then Edison's Brief in Answer is untimely. On the other hand, if it is under 2.762, then the time for filing briefs appears to have been :

tolled pending resolution of the Appeal Board's November 12, 1982, Order to Show C ause.v

- n ;;

For whatever reason, the Staff saw fit to notify Edison's Washington counsel, but not CEE, of how the County's letter was being treated. The manner in which l

i 8212010191 821126 PDR ADOCK 05000341 U 0 PDR

v g"

l. o

- 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board November 26, 1982 re: The Detroit Edison Company (Fermi ID Page Two Edison and the Staff are treating the County's letter do not take into account either the County's request for more time, the confusion between 2.714a and 2.762, or whatever rights the County may still have under 2.715(c). Common sense would seem to dictate that 2.762 should apply so that the parties and the Appeal Board have but one appeal to address, and because the issues here are all contained in the Initial Decision. -

Please advise me as soon as possible so that CEE can reply to these issues in a timely manner.

Yours truly, John R. Minock Atto y CEE g -

JRM:een ec: Paul Braunlich, Esq.

Harry Voight, Esq.

Colleen Woodhead, Esq.

.