ML20209H881

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Order Denying W Eddleman/Conservation Council of North Carolina 860609 Request for Stay of All Power Operations Authorized by Aslb.Eddleman/Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris 860804 Petition Also Denied.Served on 860912
ML20209H881
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/12/1986
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS, CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, EDDLEMAN, W.
References
CON-#386-670 OL, NUDOCS 8609160062
Download: ML20209H881 (2)


Text

(,90 00LKETEP "U

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~86 SEP 12 M1:06 COMISSIONERS:

OFFILE CF iiiAt im 90CMETt r P vicf.

Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr SERVED SEP 121986 In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY '

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ,

.E (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)i

  • ORDER There are two motions pending before the Comission in this proceeding. On June 9, 1986, Wells Eddleman, thr. Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), and Joint Intervenors filed "Coments on Imediate Effectiveness Review" and moved the Comission to stay all power operations authorized by the Licensing Board. On August 4, 1986 Eddleman and the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH) petitioned the Comission to review a July 11, 1986 Appeal Board order denying CASH's motion to intervene and a June 9, 1986 stay motion filed by CASH and Eddleman. The Comission has decided not to review the Appeal Board's July 11 order, and now denies the June 9, 1986 stay request.

The stay request, which consists of one paragraph which incorporates by reference numerous other documents, was purportedly

$80 ODIk00 @0 O S o .2.

2 filed under 10 C.F.R. 2.764. That section does not authorize the filing of stay requests, and does not apply to operation below 5% power. The request to stay operation at all power levels is therefore denied. The Comission will consider the "Coments on Imediate Effectiveness" in its regular imediate effectiveness review.1 It is so ORDERED.

40  % F the Comission n

i s

~

E

,. t r q ..-..

D j / SNIVEL J THILK -?*

4 g f' Secretary of the Comission Dated at Washington, D.C.

thisI dayof_bPt 1986.

1 1f the stay request is considered as bein filed under 10 C.F.R. 2.788,itshouldhavebeenfiledwiththeAppea$ Board,notthe Comission. Moreover, it fails to address the stay criteria in 10 C.F.R. 2.788(e), see philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and YT, CLI-86-6, 23 NRC 130,134 (1986) and fails to show any irreparable injury or any likelihood of success on the merits.

2. Commissioner Asselstine was absent for the affirmation of this order, if he had been present he would have approved.