ML19331B025
| ML19331B025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Seabrook, Vermont Yankee, Midland File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1976 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250724 | |
| Download: ML19331B025 (7) | |
Text
_
1.
\\
1 v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
=
T before the g
g U S Mit C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-f NOV 5 1976 > T1 V
~.g
- C
~
Edward A. Mason, Acting Chaiman 8
7tetor Gilinsky g
j Richard T. Kennedy a
)
In the Matter of
)
~ ' -
~ ~ -
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
DocketNos(50-329j
)
du-ddD (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)')
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 16, 1976, this Comission reconvened an Atomic-Safety and Licensing. Board in the above-captioned matter to consider whether"the
~-
construction pemits for the Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2, should be -
continued, modified or suspended.
The Board was. instructed that, as'a consecuence of the decisions handed down by the United States Court of
_ Appeals for the District of CoTumbia Circuit on July 21, 1976, Nelson p.
Aeschliman, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nos. 73-1776,
__ -1867 ("Aeschliman"), and Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v.
73 U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (the " fuel cycle" decision),_ Nosc.Z4-I335,._._
74-1586, it was to conside-.ne following issues:
energy conservation as a partial or complete substitute for construction; any changed circumstances concerning the need of the Dow ChemicaT Company for process steam and the impact of the continued operation of Dow's foss'il fuel
~
7 800?2so 74
~l
(
i
. d generating facilities; clarification of a report by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and the environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal and fuel reprocessing.
On October 13, this Comission invited parties in alt pending-proceedings looking toward possible suspensioh of out, standing licenses'
-~
- ~e and permits pursuant to our General ~ Statement of Policy of-August-13, 1976, including the instant proceeding, to express their views on whether such proceedings should be suspended.
The request for parties
- views
-~
arose in the context of a motion filed. in Docket Number 50-271 by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation for the " Recall of-Orders in B
Light of Changed Circumstances." In its response, filed-October ~ 22,1976',
! 'l Consumers Power Company' supported the motion on the Vennant Yankee-Corporation and requested that it be granted and extended to this proceeding.
h We have today issued Memoranda and Orders In The Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Docket N6s. 50-443 and 50-444,_ and.
In The Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Docket No.
I 50-271.
For the reasons stated therein, we believe that developments
~
which have occurred subsequent to the fue1{ cycle decision warrant the suspension of those proceedings and that outstanding licensees and pennits should not be disturbed on fuel cycle grounds alone at this time.
l l
q J In this case, however, examination of the first three issues listed above must continue. As to these issues, as we have indicated previously -
'e
?
inr our Memorandum and Order of September 13, 1976, the mandatec of: the +'
m r-a
- ._ court of appeals in the Aeschliman case has issued. The Aeschtiman 7"-
Er -
decision is now fully effective and binding on the Commission, which must proceed to implement it.
No sufficient reason has been shown to change our instructions to the reconvened Licensing Board.- -1/
~
As to' the remaining issue which the Board was also directed on August 13 to consider -- whether the construction permit for this
-r facility should be continued, modified or suspended on fuel' cycle
' 2 grounds - we are directing that the Board defer its consideration pending anticipated adoption of an interim fuel cycle rule. We anticipate that, 1/ Applicant argues that it has filed petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court in the Aeschliman case and that consideration of the remanded issues would be inappropriate until the Supreme Court acts on the petitions. As noted in our Order of September 13,1976, at pp. 4-5, we considered this possibility earlier and concluded that the " fact that the court denied the motions for a stay of mandate
=
pending certiorari also indicates that the court expects the Commission to proceed with all remanded issues promptly and without awaiting Supreme Court disposition of whatever petitions for certiorari may be filed."
4 as a practical matter, an effective interim rule will be in place by the time the Board is prepared to render a decision on the reopened record. At that time, the Board will have before it all the information it will need to reassess the cost benefit analysis for the Midland ~
plants. Therefore, the request of Consumers Power Company thatMhe~
'+: '~~
Motion of Vermont Yankee be extended to this proceeding is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
-W 5AMUEL d. EfuLK Secretary of the Consnission Dated at Washington, D. C.
this 5th day of November,1976 I
l
I t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!OIISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS PO*..'ER COMPANY
)
Docket No.(s) 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
es.
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day. served the foregoing. document (s) upon cach person designated on the official service list compiled by
~
the Office of the Secretary of the Ccamission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirceents of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and
~
Regulations.
Dated t Washington, D.C. this
)
day of M 197k.
s
. r.i of ricepf the Secretary of the Commission e
4 e
e 4
-e T
L
g__
.~
UNITED STAT 55 OF. m ICA h'JCII.G F.ECJ1ATC.^.Y CC?.MISSICN
)
In the at:cr of
)
)
............. f...,....
1.,._.
..e...,
(g,.r...,
~
v.....,._.
50-330 u
1
{... :
3.
- 4..m...,
g.q:.3 2 -.. J o.)
.s, 3
)
)
)
)
)
SERVICE LIST Daniel M. Head, Esq., Chair.an H: ward J. Vogel, Esq.
-.c c:.,- :.,. :
-., i..,
ye 4-,.,
,.m.
3..,
- u.
.m m..
?=nel Sla Flour Exch r;e E= 1di.;
- 1)......
.....=.cr}. %....;.zs.:...
.... - -.a
...:.,,a;. o 1.: :..,._...:..
=-
w o.a s.
- h. ashing:ca, 1,.,. c.
.:023:
J~-os A.
- .u%..A,1.1, e.qq.
i Dr. E=eth A. Luebke, Esq.
Currie and Kendall
-a Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard 135 North Saginaw Road Panel Midland, Michigan 4S640 U.S. Nuclear Regulator / Cw.....ission Washin;t =, 3.C.
20555 Judd L. Es:en. Esq.
Const:.ers ? wer Cc r. c.-
.~
ry
..., =...
.v.......:
. _.. =.....
10>....:. c..-. =c..
Jacssca,.::.:;.
-:. 1
, Houston, Texas 7736 Willim J. Ginster, Esq.
Merrill Buildin;, Suite 4 Counsel for XKC Staff Saginaw, Mic'.igan 45602
=
U. S. V.. ' e.r 't'.^.,.'. ' e... '.....'.= s.i c.,.
. u Washir;t=, D.C.
20535 Milton R. tres sel, Esq.
5 4 tittle Lane
- 2. ' 5
. h.*"en,,.
C~. Or'.?,
r.s C..
v
- t. 4. e...- <.. a.
,s...
s..
1 1n.. t t.1 u<-. :..
.3 y.
Harc1d F. Reis, Esc.
E=orable Curtis G. Beck Lo..,,e..
.e..v....-.,
.s.t.e r. w. o, u
.s 2.s. n s su.,..
b,_m..,,
.4
~. -. - -
sa..
1025 Cc r ecticu: Avenue Seven Storf Office Buildi ;
Washington, D.C.
20036 525 West Ottawa Lansing, Michigan 4S913 lbnorable William H. Ward Lee hbte, Esq...
Assistant Attorney General Michigan Dis,1sion State of Kansas The Dow Chemical Company Topeka, kansas 66612 47 Building Midland, Michigan 48640 Irv2ng Like, msq.
Reilly, Like and Schneider Anthony 2. Rois an, Esq.
Roisman, Kessler and Cashdan 200 West Main Street I
Babylen, New York 11702 1712 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
~
w.
4 1
i
... =
~
rJ.,
- a. n...-.. o. ~...0 T 1_ _...i w. 3 W
\\
~
vs
=
i3 U 1 ^ ' ' " -
'4 -
SE3~
'~-
b
~
E.idla., P.
higan l
..j
.n e i
...1 e
e e
a e
e O
e 9
9 4
e e
g e
e I
--...g
,,