ML19331A855
| ML19331A855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1972 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A857 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230889 | |
| Download: ML19331A855 (2) | |
Text
,if l Q' h ; *-
u... t
'O, & UTIL FAC,50-D iT3O hf
~
C M.-.t',972 > ;
d E[
[
U iITED STATZS OF A:. ERICA
,s'C d'
'ATO:!IC ETE2GY CC:L'ISSION Co I l* t 4 In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUERS PC'E2 CCMPATI
)
Docket Iros. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER AIID REFE3FAL To THE APPEAL BOARD The petition to intervene of the State of Kansas and the contentions of various opposing intervenors raise questions concern-ing the environmental effects of all aspects of the fuel cycle fron the mining of uranium to the ultimate storage of high level vastes.
Applicent has objected that most of these issues are not pmperly to be considered.in this adjudicatory proceeding and has requested that the Board certify to the Cordssion the question as to what aspects of the Pael cycle are at issue in this adjudicatory pro-ceeding. Although there is sharp disagreement about the answer to the question, the parties are in substantial agreement that it raises major, novel issues of law and policy which ought to be decided by the Co =ission.
It is not clear to the Board whether the appro-priate procedure is by a certification under 10 CFR S 2.718(1) to the Appeal Board, or by entering an order, and referring it to the Appec1 Board under S 2.730(f). Since it seems to the Board that these questions are appropriate for consideration by the Co=lssion (the parties, including the AEC staff, cgree) rather than the Appeal Board, we have proceeded under S 2.730(f) which seems =cre 8007230 M 9 G
e 2-certcinly.to ' contemplate commission action.
In any event we urge the Appeal Board to refer the questions to the Coc=ission under 10 CFR S 2.785(d).
I Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
The errrironmental effects of the mining, production and--
fabrication of nuclear fuel and the handling of spent fuel including chc=ical reprocessir4 and waste storage are not at issue in this proceeding, except in the following aspects:
(1) the transportation of fuel elements from the fuel fabrication plant to the reactor site; (2) the transportation of spent fuel cl'cEents from the site to the fuel reprocessing plant; (3) the transportation of packa6ed radioactive material from the site to low-level waste burial grounds; (4) radioactive discharges occurring at the site, and any other environmental effects directly associated with the handling and use of the nuclear fuel at the site.
Except with respect to items (1) to (4), neither the appli-cant in its draft environmental statement, nor the staff in its draft detailed statement is required to consider the errtironmental effects of nuclear fuel; and no party to the proceeding shall be permitted to introduce evidence with respect thereto, or inquire into such effects by way of interrogatory or othezaise.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4
W' ' t&
- n. ),,
_ pp ArtnurW.Murpny, Chairman-l New York, New York,10 22ch,1972
- -