ML19331B035
| ML19331B035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1977 |
| From: | Coufal F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250733 | |
| Download: ML19331B035 (7) | |
Text
$
(
Q e
i p.
o s
g4g D/,
y'...
UNITED STATES OF AbERICA T
NUCLEAR REGULGORY CCM4ISSION
/
ep"" (f
?/
BEFORE THE AI T IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING EGGD
- u p sto
)
In the Matter of
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER CQ fANY
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
// 78 77
)
le DRANDUM AND ORDER Tne Licensee has submitted tw motions, " Motion of Consumers Power Cocpany for an order establishing definite procedures for the future conduct of these proceedings," dated December 13, 1976 and
" Motion of Consumers Power Company to specify the issues encompassed by and delineate the factors to be utilized in reaching a decision,on the suspension proceeding and the hearing on the remanded issues,"
dated January 17, 1977.
The Cocmission and the Board have on several occasions spoken to
[
the issues and the factors to be considered in the suspension hearing.
The Cmmission on September 14, 1976 directed "that the reconvened Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should consider all issues which have l
been remanded to the Cocmission by the court of appeals" and that the l
Board " call for briefs from the parties to define all required steps and i
to undertake any necessary proceedings." In a separate memorandum and
[
order issued on the same day, the Cocmission attplified its reasoning and granted the Mapleton Intervenors' ration of September 3, 1976, to 1
. _.r 8007250 7 3 3 g
l i
i i
.\\
t ':. ~
}
b
- .
- l 1- !; _
l.g clarify the catters to be censidered by the Board. On Septe er 21, j
....,...j 1976, the Board called for briefs of the parties specifically requesting j
~
':::B the parties to provide "any other information they consider responsive 4
to the Cc M ssion's direction that the briefs ' define all required steps.'"
Furthermore, the Board scheduled a hearing to " receive evidence from 7
the parties on the factors set out on page 9 of the cm mission's General Statement of Policy insofar as they are applicable to the Midland case, and on any other pertinent matters relating to suspension."
=
This information was repeated in the Board's notice setting a hearing s
issued the same day.
The Board on October 21, 1976, after noting that the ACRS letter had been returned for clarification, and stating that 6lng the sus-pension hearings a prehearing conference would be held to sharpen "the issues to be tried in the reopened proceeding," discovery was opened "with regard to energy conservation and to the issue of Dow Chenical Cccpany's current involvement," and written testinony was ordered filed for the upcm%g suspension hearing.
The Board on October 21, 1976, in denying Papleton Intervenors' notiontodecidethesuspensionissueonlegalbriefs,stabedoncemore that the guidelines in the Cmmission's General State:nent of Policy issued August 13,1976, "should be applicable to this suspension hearing."
j 1
=
The C a sion on Noves er 5, 1976, issued an order in this pro-
==
ceeding which repeated the Ccucission's instruction of August 16, 1976
c L
I?
t ';.
to this Board to consider the following issues:
" energy conservation as a partial or complete substi-tute for construction; any changed circumstances concerning the need of Dow Ch d eni Company for
~~
process steam and the impact of the continued opera-tion of Dow's fossil fuel generating facilities; clarification of a reprt by the Advisory Coamittee on Reactor Safeguards '
but directed the Board to defer consideration of "the environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal and fuel reprocessing." The Cocu:ission also stated that "[n]o sufficient reason has been shown to change our instructions [of September 13,1976] to the reconvened Licensing Board."
On November 30, 1976, the Board stated in opening the hearing that "[t]he particular issues were energy conservation as a partial or couplete substitute for construction of the facility; any changed p
circumstances concerning the need of Dow Chemical Company for process steam, the impacts of continued operation of Dow's fossil fuel generating facility; clarification of a report by the Advisory Cocmittee on Reactor Safeguards and the environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal and fuel reprocessing."
(tr. 4)
The Board inmediately noted that the fuel cycle issue was deferred.
(Tr. 6)
J
..q
t 4
With respect to the factors to be considered, the Licensee said:
"On renand the en,nission reconstituted this Board and instructed it to reoperi the hearing in order to consider the remanded issue and initially to consider the question of whether the construction permi.ts should be continued, nodified or suspended pending the conclusion of the remanded hearing.
The Ccx: mission instructe'd the Board to consider the fol-lowing points in making its determination with regard to continuation, redification or suspension of the construction pennits:
First, whether significant adverse environmental impacts will occur if construction continues durin'g t;he period necessary to cco:plete the remand proceedings; Second, whether reasonable alternativeswill be foreclosed by continued construction as proposed; Third, the effects of a delay in construction; Fourth, whether the cost-benefit balance will be 1
tilted to increased investment; and Fifth, general public policy concerns, including the need for the project, the extent of the NEPA violation, and the timeliness of the objections raised."
(Tr. 145-6).
t -
i -
Continuing the Licensee stated:
"Now, ultirately this 3 card will have to detedne the following:
_ z.
First, whether, on the, basis of the remissien's further generic study of the fuel. cycle issue, the cost-benefit balance will have been altered to such an extent that this and other nuclear plants should not be constructed.
Second, whether, given such a reduction in denand pro-jections as can reasonably be anticipated in light of reasonably available energy conservation unsures, there is still a need for the generating capacity of this plant.
-*1 Third, stether the ACRS letter has been adequately clarified and stether, on the basis of such clarification, any serious unresolved safety proble:ns exist witich cocpel the conclusion that the plant should be egg ug iately nodified.
And, fourth, whether 'there have been changes in Dow's need for process steam and its intentions with regard to continued operation of its existing fossil fueled units such that the cost-E i~
benefit balance has been tilted against construction of the plant."
(Tr. 146-7).
t 1: ~
The Licensee in its opening statement said:
"'Ihe issues reranded are:
First, the Court directed the Cmmi.ssion to undertake
,=
appropriate consideration of waste disposal and other
=
unaddressed fuel cycle issues.
Second, it directed the rermdssion to give further consideration to energy conservation measures for the reduction of consu:ner dmd as a possible alternative to construction of the plant.
In other words, to consider the potential effect of energy conservation on d-id pro-jections, and therefore, on the need for power.
'It directed the Cocmission to return the ACRS report to the ACRS for clarificaticn of the reference in the report to -- and I quote:
"... other probis:s related to large water reactors."
The Court also mated that it assu:aes that en rerand the Comnission would also take into account any changed circun-stances regarding Dcu's need for process steza and Dow's intentions relating to continued operation cf-its fossil fuel generating facilities."
(Tr. 144)
. 'Ihus, the issues have been identified by the Court, by the Conr:ission
.. I and by this Board. We further consider that Licensee has made a 7
reasonable statement of dat the issues for the suspension hear 1rg
=
--l We expect that the parties will continue to disagree on stat are.
evidence is relevent to a resolution of those issues. We expect to continue to handle those questions as they arise.
As far as procedure is concerned, we early stated that Licensee should proceed with its witnesses in the order that it chose. This has been knocked sacatat askew because of the Dow request that witnesses frcm tFat Cocpany be heard during the week of January 31, 1977 and by a change by Licensee in its order of presentation due to considerations which arose by reason of Intervenor's notion to exclude witnesses. But we intend to j
proceed next with Mr. Howell, Mr. Ayren, Mr. Youngdahl and the Dow people.
After that we will finish with other Consumer's witnesses and then nove into the Staff presentation and to that of the Intervenors. khen the suspension hearing has been coupleted we will consider the issues to be heard on the rarand case.
It is ordered that the issues and the procedures in this suspension l
hearing are as stated in this Me orandum.
l i
EUR ' DIE A1U4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSIhU BOARD FrederigkJ.Toufal{ Chainran Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 31st day of January,1977.
s
- - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - - _ _ -