ML19331A479
| ML19331A479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Meyer D MICHIGAN, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007170734 | |
| Download: ML19331A479 (3) | |
Text
c#
g
~
UNITED STATES
,[
y NUCtlAR REGULATORY COMMIS.
,N 3
g wAsHINcTon. o. c. 20sss
,-v-3
+
March 18, 1977
.[
k
~
Ci bi Mr. Daniel F. Meyer, Engineer N
Air Quality Division NW G
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 48909 i
In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1977 presenting your Staff's position regarding emission standards for the Dow Chemical Company in Midland, Michigan.
You also inquired about the likely length of the current interim suspension hearing and of the subsequent hearing on the merits of the remand.
It is difficult to judge the length of these hearings as each hearing involves different issues and different parties.
We estimate that the current hearing should conclude with the filing of post-hearing findings by the parties in mid-April.
The presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board would normally issue a decision within about a month later.
We estimate that the rehearing on the merits will commence in June,1977 and that the Board decision may reasonably be expected by September, 1977.
In response to your three enumerated questions, I can provide you with the following information:
1.
What is the earliest date that the Mid3and facility could commence operation?
The currently estimated commercial operation dates are March,1981 and March, 1982 for Units 2 and 1, respectively.
There is no basis for assuming that these dates will change significantly, and therefore they may be regarded as reasonable estimates.
80 07170 7 3 L/
.g
~
I
. 2.
If the current hearing concludes with the decision to allow Consumers to continue construction on the facility, will such construction continue while the hearing on the merits is conducted this summer?
Yes, barring any supervening technical or legal events, such as the reversal of an interim initial decision on appeal.
3.
Are there future hearings de a the road that this facility will be subject to assuming a favorable decision on the two immediate hearings? Specifically, will this facility require a new hearing to be granted an operating license?
An operating license hearing is not mandatory.
However, one sould be required if interested persons were to request it and if they fulfilled the applicable legal requirements.
Operating license hearings are not uncommon.
They are normally scheduled far enough in advance so that they do not affect the timing of a proposed operating schedule.
It is difficult to respond to your further inquiry regarding potential delays beyond currently estimated start-up dates.
The schedule appears reasonable, but is subject to unanticipated delays, much the same as any large construction project.
In addition, there is obviously a potential for delay depending on the decision in the current interim suspension hearing.
Finally, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Brenner you requested information filed in our proceedings on the cost of the fossil-fired "Dow alternative." We are enclosing the 'following:
1.
"NRC Supplemental Direct Testimony of Sidney E. Feld on the Alternative of Dow Generating its own Steam and Electric Power" l
2.
" Testimony of Richard F. Brzezinski" 3.
Exceprts (pp. 83-89 and Intervenors' Exhibit 46) from l
" Testimony of Richard J. Timm on Behalf of All Intervenors Except Dow Chemical Company" E
c._
._-p
,.,,, _, + _. -,
,_.w-.,
,,.._.,m
%.,y.,-,,..,_
~
m 4.
Memorandum, J. R. Burroughs and J. L. Schick of Dow Chemical Co. to L.F. Nute of Dow Chemical Co., " Comparison of Dow Alternatives for Supplying Steam and Poer to the Midland Plant" (January 13,1977)
I hope the above information is helpful to you.
l Sincerely, Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff 1
I Enclosures as stated cc(w/outencl.):
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
I Dr. Emeth A. Luebke Myron M Cherry, Esq.
Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Honorable Curt T. Schneider Ms. Mary Sinclair Harold F. Reis, Esq.
L. F. Nute, Esq.
Mt. Steve Gadler R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section
(
l r
.