ML19331B108
| ML19331B108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1976 |
| From: | Head D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250800 | |
| Download: ML19331B108 (3) | |
Text
.'
5/Nh*
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCEAR REGUIAIORY C& MISSION 8
'aJlp s
~
5 OCT'1 1976 >
1 BEFURE THE ATQ4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
q
.. g
,e In the Matter of
)
g g
00NSRERS POWER CQfNTY
)
Docket-Nos
-329)
)
50- 0 (Midland Plant, thits 1 & 2)
)
te 0RANDlN The purpose of this Menorandtn is for the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) to set forth its reasons for denial of the Motion by the Mapleton and Seginaw Intervenors (the Intervenors) to adjourn any hearing in connection with the suspension issue and rule on the matter solely on the legal briefs filed herein.
Inter-venors' brief had requested an inmediate suspension of the construc-tion permits for the Midland facility without a hearing. The Board interpreted the motion to adjourn as a motion for imediate suspen-sion and denied it as such.
Although the Cannission is considering suspension of all pend-ing show cause proceedings on fuel cycle issues a's indicated in the letter from the Secretary of the Ccmnission dated October 13, 1976, a hearing on suspension in this proceeding is nevertheless needed in view of the pendency of the two other raranded issues, energy conservation and clarification of the ACRS report. Further, the Cacmission in its Joint Memorandtm and Order of Septaber 14, 1976 indicated that the question of modification or suspension of 2260 S
800
)
- c. t.
' ?,[.. '
2-construction pemits for the Midland facility is not appropriate for sumury disposition and should be decided in femal proceedings in T
light of the facts and applicable law.
In the Board's view, there-fore, it is necessary to hold a hearing on the suspension. The Board ccnsiders that the huidelines set out iri the Camission's General Statenent of Policy on the Environnental Effects of the Uranim Fuel Cycle (GSP) issued August 13, 1976 (41 FR 34707) should be applicable to this suspension hearing.
Further, a hearing in the form of oral arguaent might have satisfied the formal proceedings requirement if only the fuel cycle issues were involved or if there was more current infomation on the record regarding the status of the facility and the ciremstances that are pertinent to suspension considerations (see GSP, p. 9).
However, this proceeding does not at present have sufficient current facts on the record for the Board to make a reasoned determina*. ion t
on suspension. This view is reinforced by the position taken by the Staff in its Brief in response to the Board's Order of September 21,
(
7 1976 (Staff Brief, p. 5), and by the indication from the Applicant in its Brief that it intends to make a substantial evidentiary pres-l entation regarding suspension. The Board, therefore, has detemined that the suspension hearing should be evidentiary in nature.
~
Further, the Board has before it a situation 2ere Consurers Powr Capany, although referred to for the sake of conv mience as e
. the Applicant, is now in fact a licensee. As such, Consuners Power has been taking action for a substantial period (over 3 years) in reliance en the pemits issued by the Ccmissicn. Under these cir-cunstances, an appropriate hearing is warranted to give adequate consideration to the suspension issue.
See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S.
535, 29 L. Ed. 2nd 90, 91 S. Ct.1486 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 25 L Ed. 2nd 287, 90 S. Ct.1011 (1970); Goldsmith
- v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S.117, 70 L. Ed. 2nd 494, 46 S. Ct.
215 (1926).
For the above reasons, the Board in its Notice and Order of October 4,1976 denied the Intervenors' request to adjourn the hearing and to order an imediate suspension of the construction pemics for Midland.
FDR 'HE AIUEC SAFELY RO LICBEING E0ARD n-
/CL?n?:'c //s, /lE",
Daniel M.' Head, Chaiman Dated at Bethesda, Kryland, this 21st day of October, 1976.
4
,