ML20203M963
| ML20203M963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| References | |
| CON-#386-589 OL, NUDOCS 8609050215 | |
| Download: ML20203M963 (3) | |
Text
'^*
O YPc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA us NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
116 SEP -4 Pl2:21 COMMISSIONERS:
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman kcki t[d$/v^$
Thomas M. Roberts BRANCH James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal
.MDSEP 4 g Kenneth M. Carr In the Matter of CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, el al.
50-441 OL (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 27, 1986, OhioCitizensforResponsibleEnergy,Inc.(OCRE) requested the Comission to postpone its scheduled September 5 meeting on whether to issue a full power license for the Perry-1 nuclear plant, and to refrain from issuing a full power license pending the outcome of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 6th Cir., No. 86-3355.1 On August 28, 1986 0CRE, incorporating the arguments in its August 27 motion, moved to stay the Comission's scheduled September 5 meeting. OCRE's argument is that a Comission decision to authorize a full power license for Ferry will moot lihat lawsuit is an interlocutory challenge to the Comission's April 18, 1986 decision not to reopen the record of this proceeding. CLI-86-7, 23 NRC 233(1986).
$$fS85$ESIoho
/3 62 0
2 any rights it may have to judicial review of the Comission's April 18, 1986 decision not to reopen the record of this proceeding.
The NRC staff and applicant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company opposed OCRE's motion for a continuance. Both argued that OCRE failed to demonstrate that the Comission's scheduled meeting should be postponed.
The purpose of the scheduled September 5 meeting is to hear from the NRC staff and other parties to the proceeding including CCRE on matters relevant to whether a full power license should be issued. The only potential harm OCRE perceives from holding the meeting on September 5 is based on OCRE's belief that a Comission decision at the meeting on a full power license for Perry-1 will moot any rights OCRE may have to seek judicial review of a Comission decision'in the underlying adjudicatory proceeding. This belief does not provide a basis for postponing the Comission meeting. The meeting is scheduled by the Comission to review the matter of issuing a full power operating license for Perry. See10C.F.R.92.764(f)(2). The Comission has r
not made any judgment whether the full power license should be allowed to issue and will not do so until after hearing from the parties at the meeting.2 20CRE's belief is also incorrect.
If the Comission decides to authorize issuance of a full power license at the conclusion of the meeting, that decision -- and decisions in the underlying adjudication -- can be challenged in court. The Comission in this Order is not addressing OCRE's request not to issue a full-power license. That request will be considered in the context of the scheduled meeting.
i The Comission is also not addressino in this order any reasons for a stay of the September 5 meeting other than that presented by OCRE's j
August 27 filing -- i.e., that the Comission meeting would render moot OCRE's case in court, i
.n.
3 Accordingly, the Comission agrees with the NRC staff and applicant that OCRE has not demonstrated any cogent reason for postponing the scheduled meeting. OCRE's motions to continue and stay the Comission meeting scheduled for September 5 are therefore denied.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Comission
[F'%
oedu T
8 SAMUEL J.
CHILK U
.T Secretary of the Comission
\\
/
hwa5 Dated at Washington, D.C.
s tL this I ~ day of September, 1986.
.