ML20003D941

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Order Declining Review of ASLB 810224 Partial Initial Decision Re Site Dewatering Sys Installation.Fuller Scrutiny of Issue Can Await ASLB Final Rulings
ML20003D941
Person / Time
Site: La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date: 03/30/1981
From: Bishop C
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SC, LBP-81-7, NUDOCS 8104010522
Download: ML20003D941 (2)


Text

.1.-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD A

Administrative Judges:

p so E-Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairma 6 Dr. John H. Buck y

p 's 2

MAR 311981 > L gT Ag

([

Occheting & Saniss Office of the Seastur Thomas S. Moore 7J7 u

g@ra.k.

1"1,

t

)

@^-

4 In the Matter of

)

/

DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE et No. 50-409 SC

)

(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor)

)

SQyg*$? -

)

.!S8 GJ {

ORDER 7

March 30, 1981 On February 24, 1981 the Licensing Board rendered a partial initial decision in this show-cause proceeding instituted to con-sider whether a site dewatering system should be installed at the Lacrosse nuclear facility to prevent liquefaction (i.e., the flow of soil under the site) were an earthquake to occur in the vicin-ity of the site.

LBP-81-7, 13 NRC In that decision, the Board below determined certain of the matters in controversy and concluded that reasonable assurance existed "that continued oper-ation of [ Lacrosse] without a dewatering system for the site will not endanger the health and safety of the public, pending a final determination by the Board on the merits of all remaining matters in controversy * * *".

Id. at (slip opinion, p. 36).

l l

8104010C M O Sd'N O

$a/

G

, No exceptions having been filed by any party, the partial initial decision is now before this Board for review sua sponte.

A preliminary examination of the decision discloses no reason why our fuller scrutiny of the site dewatering questica cannot await the Licensing Board's final ruling on that question.

In this connection, we assume that the Board below will bring the proceeding to its ultimate conclusion with due dispatch.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0.0

-han N

1 Bishop i

C.

Je%

Secretary to the Appeal Board i

t i

1 i

)

l

-