ML19260D712
| ML19260D712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002110644 | |
| Download: ML19260D712 (3) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q\\Yf?lf E
t9 '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
- 0. p# @SY O
00 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman 4:
bbgj)
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Thomas S. Moore 9
)
JV In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
(La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
(SFP License Amendment)
)
ORDER January 30, 1980 In its January 10, 1980 initial decision in this license amendment proceeding, b! the Licensing Board assigned several, assertedly independent, reasons in support of its earlier de-termination that it both could and should explore the need for the electric power being generated by the La Crosse facility.
In part because it thought this question (characterized by it sa " jurisdictional") to be a close one, the Board referred its ruling to us under 10 CFR 2.730 (f).
It is far from clear to us that there is warrant for acceptance of the referral.
More spacifically, it seems quite 1_/
LBP-80-2, 11 NRC
'.OA1
?}3
(;j' 8002110 6W
. probable that this proceeding involves a unique set of facts, with the consequence that the issue underlying the referred ruling is unlikely to recur with frequency (and perhaps not at all).
If so --
i.e.,
if there are few or no other nuclear facilities in a similar or analogous status to that of La Crosse -- why should we nonetheless entertain the referral?
Seemingly not content with the referral, the staff has filed an exception which attacks one -- but only one -- of the grounds upon which the Board rested the referred ruling.
Even if we were to agree with the staff that that ground is erroneous, the ruling might nevertheless be adequately supported by one of the other, alternative reasons given by the Board.
In these circumstances, why should not the staff's appeal be dismissed?
The staff shall, and any other party to the proceeding may, file a memorandum by February 13 addressed to the above two questions. 2,/
Pending further order of this Board, the time for the filing of the staff's brief in support of its exception is tolled.
--2/
In connection with its identification of any facility deemed by it to be "in a similar or analogous status to that or La Crosse", the staff should also address the likelihood of the referred issue arising in a li-cense amendment proceeding involving that f acility.
}90)
~ It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
%N M
C. Je@ Bishop
\\
SecretMry to the Appeal Board
- O,11 1 1.C i,
J
.J