ML20127M562
| ML20127M562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1985 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-106 NUDOCS 8505230303 | |
| Download: ML20127M562 (3) | |
Text
_
- v 4.. < y
y "b,,"
l f
f~
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ TOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD A
Administrative Judges:
DOCKETED USNRC Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman May 21, 1985
' Gary J.
Edles Dr.-Reginald L..Gotchy 35 MAY 21 P4:33 0FFICE OF SECEDAR(
)
OCChETING & SE8v!U.
In the Matter of
)
BRANCH
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-352 OL
-1
)
'50-353 OL (Limerick Generating Station,
)
j g gay 221985 Units _1 and 2)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 17, 1983, the inmates of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, intervenors in this operating license procecding, filed a notice of appeal'from the Licensing Board's May 9, 1985, order.
That order purported to grant the February 7, 1985, motion of applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) for an (Temption.from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a) and (b) insofar as the emergency evacuation plan'for 'the inmates at the Graterford facility is involved.
Our-review of the Board's order, however, leads us to conclude that it is not final and thus not appealable.
We therefore dismiss the inmates' appeal without prejudice.
The language of the Board's May 9 order is ambiguous, i
i and, thus, we can understand the inmates' precautionary action in filing an appeal.
The order grants PECo's motion
!h352 4
J{
- w
,j.
y td4!
f q-f 2
3 for exemption and states:
"any final impediment'to the p
issuance of a full power license has been removed."
Licensing l Board Order of May 9, 1985 (unpublished) at 8.
But the order goes on to invite comments from any party opposing the issuance of such order." ' Ibid...The custcmary language explicitly authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a full-power-license is missing
- from the order, and we cannot find any such direction in the Board's earlier partial initial decision on offsite emergency planning, LBP-85-14, 21 NRC __ (May 2, 1985).
Moreover, we do not understand how the Board could properly weigh the exemption criteria of both 10 C.F.*1.
SS 50.12(a) and 50.47 (c) (1) (cs well as pertinent case law) before it has determined whether any exemption will even be necessary-b
-- i.e., whether the inmates have proffered an admissible contention.
We therefore construe the Licensing Board's
- May'9 order as merely tentative or proposed.
In the circumstances, it is not ripe for review.
- ~ ~ '
The inmates' May 17, 1985, appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
~
1 L
In ALAB-806, 21 NRC
(.May 1, 1985), we' set May 15' as the deadline for the inmEtes to submit ravised cententions to the~ Licensing Board. - They did so on May 13, and, after awaiting possible objections from the other parties, presumably then the Licensing Board will determine if any admissible contention has been stated.
n n
- ., ~
\\
f,-
i 3
4 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD W
', _ _ 1 -~ J h.u ~ d+ ~'
Barbara A. Tompkins 7
l-Secretary to the l.-'
Appeal Board i
a 4
4 0
t 5
t I-i I
i t