ML19263D160
| ML19263D160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263D161 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903220065 | |
| Download: ML19263D160 (1) | |
Text
.N
- Q a,
/}9
..,.7 A w u e d. r.e.a vs en nr r..r a..r - -Ln L..
% A
~
A.
liUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSIC?i EEFORE TE ATCMIC SAFETY A';D LICENSING ECARD
., ~. ~ -.
In The Matter Of
)
)
OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS
)
Docket No. STN 50-437
)
(License to Manufacture Floating
)
Nuclear Pcwer Plants)
)
vs.h. ~. 3 NATUPAL RESCURCES DEFENSE CCUNCIL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISFCSITION For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum, the Natt'
. Res.ources Defense Council requests surmary disposition of the following issue:
The FES for the manufacture of floating nuclear plants is legally deficient because it fails to consider the en'iirencental impact of and alter-natives to the entire proposed floating nut ear plant program and is not a prograrratic impact statement.
Respectfully submitted, czL
') -
/
/
~~%
< Anthony 2.
Roisman Natural Resources-Defense Council 917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5C00 Cated.
February 16, 1979 790320 o 0 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
.r BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3 CARD s'
.:/
. /
In The Matter Of
)
)
OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS
)
Decket No. STN 50-437
)
(License to Manufacture Floating )
Nuclear Pcwer Plants)
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION I.
Introduction The applicant has proposed for approval the first step in a program to ccmmercialize the widespread building and operating of a type of nuclear facility with significantly different environmental considerations than any facilities previously licensed.
This first step may not be considered until the NRC has prepared an impact statement which enccmpasses the full range of environmental implications and alternatives relevant to the proposed program.
It is of no relevance that the applicant seeks authority to build only eight (8) of these new facilities, anymore than the need for programmatic impact statement to precede the LMF3R program was af fected by the fact that cnly one plant was proposed (the CR3R demonstration facility)
(Scientists' Institute for Public Information v.
Atomic Enercy Ccmmission, 4S1 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1973)), nor than the need for a programmatic impact statement en plutonium reprocessing was affected by the fact that cnly two processing facilities