ML20032E650
| ML20032E650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1981 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111200777 | |
| Download: ML20032E650 (3) | |
Text
--
p-w
'V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 11 00128 M0:47 Administrative Judges:
OFFICE OF SECRETAf (
00CKETING & SERVICr..
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman ORANCH Dr. John H. Buck
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 AND
)
50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
s
)
[aMi))%
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
\\
)
t NOV191981m &
ORDER C 8'b N "'*" [-
N'0 October 27, 1981 d'
The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger (CAND) have filed two appeals from portions of two Licensing Board orders dated September 23 and September 29, 1981, respectively.
The orders, inter alia, summarily dispose of portions of CAND Contention 2 relating to magnitude of radiation doses to the public and risk of low-level radiation, and sub-parts (c) and (d) of Contention 4 on need for power.
The Licensing Board's September 29 order also denies CAND's motion to defer consideration of Contentions 6 and 20.
A 6f I 8111200777 811027 PDR ADDCK 05000387 Q
s g_a
. Because the Licensing Board's orders are interlocutory in character,CAND's appeals are foreclosed by the Com-mission's Rules of Practice.
10 CFR E2.730 (f).
An order granting summary disposition of a part of an intervenor's case does not end intervenor's participation and is there-fore interlocutory.
Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), ALAB-492, 8 NRC 251, 252 (1978),
Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), ALAB-269, 1 NRC 411, 413 (1975).
Similarly, as' we explained to CAND carlier in this proceeding, a ruling on scheduling such as the Licensing Board's refusal to defer consideration of Contentions 6 and 20 is also inter-locutory in nature.
See ALAB-563, 10 NRC 449 (1979).
Ac-cordingly, CAND's appeals must await the Licensing Board's
- /
initial decision at the end of the case.--
~~*/
CAND's appeal from the Licensing Board's September 29 order also seeks a stay of that order.
CAND's papers, however, fail to address any of the mandatory require-ments for a stay application set forth in 10 CFR 52.788.
The stay request is thus denied.
As we previously stated in Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-4J2, 5 NRC 1415, 1417 (1977):
Section 2.788 is now in full effect and observance of its terms is mandatory.
A stay application which is in substantial nonconformity with the requirements of the section will be subject to summary denial with prejudice to its renewal in the absence of materially changed circumstances.
O r
3-Appeals dismissed.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BCARD b.b - -~ k -\\
l C.gJearf Shoemaker l
Secretary to the Appeal Board e
e 9
t a
n.
nn-
.-.a-_._-,...-.,.._--.-..,,,---