ML20215B309
| ML20215B309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1986 |
| From: | Wagner M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Johnson W, Moore T, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0946, CON-#486-946 EW, NUDOCS 8610060490 | |
| Download: ML20215B309 (2) | |
Text
^
T,
~
[
September 26, 1986 000ETED uiHRC g ET -2 N0 34 0FFICE Cf St&M 00CKEling & SEPVICE BRANCH Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 W. R. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of GPU NUCLEAR (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1)
Docket No. 50-289(EW)
Dear Members of the Board:
In connection with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Appeal of Judge Smith's August 19, 1986 Memorandum and Order Terminating Proceeding and Removing Notification Requirements as to Edward Wallace (Memorandum and Order), it has come to my attention that both the Commonwealth and Mr. Wal-lace appear to believe that the timing of the filing of their appellate briefs is covered by the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714a, rather than falling under -
the umbrella of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762.
While it is a close question as to whether 5 2.714a or 5 2.762 governs the time for f"11ng of appellate briefs, the better interpretation of the rules appears to the Staff to be that 5 2.762 is more
- appropriate.
The current posture of this proceeding is that of a case where a request for hearing (Mr. Wallace's) was granted, a Notice of Hearing was issued, and a petitioner under 5 2.715 (the Commonwealth) _is claiming on appeal that the ALJ erred in interpreting and/or applying the terms of a Commission order providing for termination of the hearing.
As such, the Staff believes that 5 2.762 more appropriately governs the Commonwealth's appeal.
Section 2.762 governs appeals from initial decisions.
While Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order is not technically an initial decision, neither is it a ruling on a petition to intervene (none has been filed) or a request for a hearing as that phrase is used in 5 2.714a.
It is the Staff view that 5 2.762 is the provision generally governing appeals to the Appeal Board.
Section 2.714a governs two limited exceptions to that t
l 8610060490 860926 l
PDR ADOCK 05000289-I G
PDR 3307 @.
- 1,
_2-general rule.
Since neither situation is present in this case, we believe the filing of the appeal should come under the umbrella of 5 2.762, Accordingly, unless the Board requests otherwise, the Staff currently intends to file its responsive brief in accordance with the provisions of 52.762(c).
- However, the Staff will make every effort to have.its responsive brief in the hands of the Appeal Board sometime next week.
Sincerely, Mary E. Wagner Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Service List i
Dn i
../11/
hV OEC
- 01:lh
- 000
______. ___R g
==:--
NAhE :hWagner/rb
- JGol e
______.=-
IMIE :9/26/86
- 9/26 86
...