ML19320B097
| ML19320B097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000452, 05000453 |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007090297 | |
| Download: ML19320B097 (1) | |
Text
_
t a
l UNITED STATES
/ n afcqo a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON f [.,- ( l g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 a
t f
f July 3,1980 L.
e=can
...~
,. +
a;4 2
']C >
h
. f,%
/
'.., - e C.
' 'n,/ /
ff
~ ~ ~
s
'V t
231 ME!10RANDUM FOR:
Elizabeth S. Bowers hainnan, ASLB
~
f FRO l1:
Samuel J. Chilk, Sj
)
MTROIT EDIS0N COMPAl1Y (Greenwood
SUBJECT:
IN THE MATTER OF TF e Ef ERGY CEf;TEP,, VilId y AsiD 3), DOCKET HOS. 50-452, 50-453 A pleading captioned "CEE's Motion to Compel Detroit Edison Company to Withdraw Its Application, and for Relief in the Form of Copies of the Rules We Are Expected to Follow," dated June 2,1980, was filed with the Com-mission. Because an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has been designated for tha Greenwood proceeding, this pleading should hava 'een filed with the Licensing Board rather than the Commission. 10 CFR 2.73u.
Accordingly, CEE's motion and the flRC staff's response thereto are referred to the Licensing Board for appropriate action.
Attachments:
1.
Motion 2.
Staff's Response THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAllTY PAGES OS o A-sociosoMt 5o/
p
@\\
g
/t C.
.._3
- s..c o
D USNo.:
U.,u.T. a-e x,2. s e. S C. - e.:.x_c.. r.
-M 3
r.
rr Iu, JUN 6 100'
-~~ > c4 NUCLEAR RCOULATORY COM'1ISSICS
\\Q Ch :e ct :. e Sce:ry D
\\;,
C::st:?: & St.i:e o
Eefore the Cor.r.ission "Z;
V 6
/
' / f~s.:i g @ '
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 504S2and 50-45 5 Detroit Edison
)
)
Greenwood Units 2 and 3
)
)
CEE's MOTION TO COMPEL DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO etD en,n
- 2. _2 r_ _r e r.
r u.,
. u. r.
.r O.m 6
- m. H r. -, w-I m. d T
n. P e r C n,. r C v.,
2 N
v san Or. e OP r e.c.: Or
- m. u.r.
3yLr h.r Pe X c e c.. r n.
. O.eOmmon-rr A.
Motion to Withdraw Application After Notice of Hearinas CEE moves that the NRC promptly order that within ten (10) days, Detroit Edison Co m pany (DE) withdraw its application.
In support of this motion, CEE states:
1.
There is no warrant in the rules of the Commission which can be construed to give DE any days in which to ponder over whether or not it will withdraw its application.
This is the same application about which it has made clear it has no intention to prosecute in public press releases starting cancellation of the Units 2 and 3 bv order of DE's Board of Directors.
Such unwar-ranted delays in in filing a withdrawal are not providing CEE equal prctection, since we understand we cnly have eight (9) days (as la persons, who must act without counsel--a point we protest) in which to respond to any DE move or motion.
It is obvious frcm DE's press releases that its position is already established and that there would be no undue hardship en that fine legal staff to put.
- .:s already-decided-on action plan in to wr:.::.ng in less than ten (10) davs.
This delaying tactic being supported b:. the Staff hin-
- ers and deprives CEE in its ability to respcnd tc the application, because it holds us in a state of "le al limbe" and drains cur enercies and li.ited rescurces.
It is also
.m f a r t e c :.n c r rcups the uy *c sh c file late petiticns to inter one, a case we wculd
.c.s.'... c
.c
.-i.'..-s'.
w.~
.o.
.c...'
s +' m '
-"s.'
. c. e ', '.
a s
s.
. c.
s.
900Jc80002
_a.
4 4
~
this Docket.
We all should kno-
' hat it appears DE already knows:
that it wants to not move forward with the Proposed Plants, as defined in the original application.
.'he re f ore, the 10-day time limit is sufficient for DE to render in writing its well-thought-out plans.
It is unfair for CEE and others to not know if we must fight.
3.
CEE has rights in this proceeding, and it wants DE to answer CEE's Petition to Intervene, because we believe that we could show that DE should be denied, even if DE should be allowed, unfairly, extended days to give an, affirmative answer to its de-sire to quit delaying these proceedings.
Delay by DE only increases the cost on any plant it will build in its system, and every rate payer, including CEE is harmed for his lifetime; but no harm is done to DE, who just passes on all its cos's to the taxpayers.
t If the Regulatory Staff's position is adopted, that means that DE will have the benefit of its own, untested representations or premises, and only if it answers the Petition to Intervene can an adequate evaluation be made of r"'s decision, if it is other than to withdraw the application.
4.
The petition should be dismissed for more reasons, even if DE decides to push forward, because, in its press releases, DE unequivocally and irrevocably states that the application now on file is not the application DE will want to prosecute.
This fact is true now or in 60 days, so.why delay?
The Regulatory Staff has not addressed this question and, 'accordingly, even if DE is given an unjustified delay, DE will be deciding to move forward on an application it has admitted is not going to be prosecuted by DE.
5.
The NRC and DE appear to be wanting to make pome kind g
of. secret and behind-closed-door arrangements to delay consideration of-the design, safety, and environmental aspects, while attempt-ing to illegally approve the site for a nuclear plant, such as a sodium-cooled fast-breeder, for example.
They may even be consider-miI~t/ qf
//
cc:cTED 3
UM*O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
e CbD 4
]
JUN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Oth:t :f Y' 3#'I~T c:pe:w. & ha. t 6
3 Before the Commission D /.f l.q. 1 \\ @
In the Matter of
)
Detroit Edison
)
Docket Nos. 50-951and 50 -434
)
Greenwood Units 2 and 3
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CEE's Motion to Compel Detroit Edison Company to Withdraw its Ap~oli ca tien, and for Relief in the Form of Cocies of the Rules we are Expected to Follow, datedes39 4, 1980', has been served on first-class following by deposit in the United Sta[es mail, the or air-mail, postage prepaird, this 2?'
' day of May, 1980.
M Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Detroit Edison Co.
Route h 1 2000 Edison Office Building Freeland, Michigan 48623 Detroit, Michigan 49200 Atomic Safet'v and Licensinc Appeal Board M
bhd U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 80. #3 ep /6 L Washington, D.C.
20545 Mr.
N.
H.
Goodrich, Chairman M, gg y $ 0 c (,
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20545 Mr. Paul C.
Bender, Secretary ggg/
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatorv Comm'n.
Robert G.
- nsoercer,
,da s hinc ton, DC 2054'5 d, ember authorizec to a In CEE's behalf.
Mn Frrtk W..aras K
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary of the Comm'n.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20545 Ah OS-Mr.' David E.
Kartalia, Esc.
Office cf the General Counsel U.S.
NucleP* Regulatory Commission Washingte-DC 20545 Michigan'Public Service ccamission Law Building
- c. sing, Michigan 4E913
i l
i Tilic u \\g c
.s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cccccc
-s usunc
(_,
1 N N 2 4 19 % > f y-
'i,.?8?', pelt.33,[.
BEFORE THE COMMISSION J,,
.;,--m:s 9
/ '91 ; t u \\
In the Matter of
)
THE DETROIT EDISON ' COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-452
)
50-453 (Greenwood Energy Center,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
-m r- - _ _
=n-NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CEE'S MOTION TO THE COMMISSION TO COMPEL DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO WITHIRAW ITS APPLICATION AND FOR OTHER RELI U Edwin J. Reis Counsel for NRC Staff C"*ST W2 E...FT. R T 3.F. S" P. f..,5" G. T & A T C g
a L>.
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT L
)b ghg1 i
/
Entire document previously
{*
W-entered into system under:
hh b
ANO h
No. _Tpages:
i j
c@
e l
amus22n