ML19261A318
| ML19261A318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000450, 05000451 |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1979 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901110288 | |
| Download: ML19261A318 (4) | |
Text
.
-o, NRC PUBLIC DOCUSIENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4L 4p
'05 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4, g g s 7 Michael C. Farrar, Chairman hl
,g)(
"2 Richard S. Salzman
- T.,e n
Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson
[
Y#GMs J
SERvgo w
) J'i:%
4 C' In the Matter of
)
}
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-450
)
50-451 (Summit Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Mr. Donald P.
Irwin, Richmond, Virginia, _or the applicant Delmarva Power & Light Company.
Assistant Attorney General Michael J.
Scibinico, II, Annapolis, Maryland, for the State of Maryland, intervenor.
Mr. Stephen H.
Lewis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER January 3, 1979
( ALAB-516)
Over three years ago, the Licensing Board issuec a partial initial decision sanctioning a limited work autnori-zation in this construction permit proceeding.
LBP-75-43, 2 NRC 215, as supplemented by LBP-75-44, 2 NRC 251 (1975).
The State of Maryland, one of the parties below, took an appeal at that time.
In addition, certain participants in 7 9 o 111 o it t i
s a Delaware administrative proceeding involving this same nuclear facility filed a stay motion with us.
Before we could act, the applicant's plans changed:
certain contracts were terminated and we were told that its plans for the proposed Summit station might be altered substantially in other respects as well.
The applicant therefore decided not to go ahead with any construction activity; in that circumstance, we honored its request to withhold any action on the papers that had been filed with us.
A long time then passed with the proceeding in abey-ance, prompting us ultimately to request a s atus report.
The applicant responded that, having evaluated "a range of options for baseload generation on its system over the coming ten to fifteen years," it wants to "preserv [e] the nuclear option at the Summit site".
(Letter of October 26, 1978).
But it has not yet selected a new vendor for the nuclear steam supply system, nor has it settled on a particular date for the commencement of operations.
Accord-ingly, it wishes to amend its construction permit applica-tion and to focus now only on site suitability issues, seeking an early partial decision on that subject pursuant
. to Subpart F of Part 2 of the Commission's regulations (10 CPR 2.600 et seq.).
Although the applicant proposes to submit to the Licensing Board newly-available informa-tion bearing on site-related issues, it believes that it may be possible to avoid full-scale relitigation of many matters previously resolved by that Board.
We solicited comments on the applicant's report from all the other interested parties.-1/
Maryland and the staff responded; both offered essentially no opposition to the applicant's proposal.
Accordingly, as suggested by the applicant, the deci-sions below are vacated without prejudice and the cause is remanded to the Licensing Board to await the formal receipt of an early site approval application and then to conduct such further proceedings on that amended application as it deems appropriate.-2/
Concomitantly, the appeal and the
_1/ We notified not only those who had filed papers with us but also the Attorneys General of Delaware and New Jersey, who had participated in the proceedings below.
_2/ That Board will have before it not only the new pro-posal and supporting materials (none of which we have seen) but also the record previously developed; it will be for that Board to decide, inter alia, to what extent it can summarily reinstate any portions of its prior decision without requiring further hearings.
We, of course, are not in position to express any opinion on that score and should not be taken as having done so.
. stay motion now pending before us are dismissed as moot.-3/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD WA4 OJ./ E Marghret E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
--3/ The State of Maryland (endorsed by the staff) expressed some objection to having its appeal dismissed on this basis.
Contrary to its apparent belief, however, this action is not at all inconsistent with its view that
" striped bass entrainment remains an issue of key importance in these proceedings."
The State will be free to prosecute a new appeal if it is dissatisfied with the resolution that issue receives below.
But there is no Licensing Board decision now extant to pro-vide a predicate for the appeal previously filed.
e