ML19338C054
| ML19338C054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1977 |
| From: | Coufal F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338C051 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310640 | |
| Download: ML19338C054 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:'g 8 e ? 9 o p# LNHED STATES OF AMERICA 7 NUCLEAR REGULERY CCMESSION k q / j tuunB THE A1U4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSHU BOARD 'g,, W[ ) In the Matter of ) ) CCNSUMERS POWER CCMPANY ~ ) Docket Nos. 50-329 ) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 'Ihe Licensee has submitted two motions, " Motion of Consuners Power Company for an order establishing dafinite procedures for the future conA ct of these proceedings," dated December 13, 1976 and " Motion of Consumers Power Ccmpany to specify the issues enempassed by and dalinante the factors to be uM147ed in reachirg a decision on the suspension proceeding and the hearing on the remanded issues," dated January 17, 1977. The Cemnission and the Board have on several occasions spoken to the issues and the factors to be considered in the suspension hearing. The Cntm4asion on September 14, 1976 directed "that the reconvened Atomic Safety and Licensing Board sMuld consider all issues which have been remanded to the Cccmission by the court of appeals" and that the Board " call for briefs from the parties to daffna' all required steps and to undertake any necessary proceedings." In a separate memorandum and order issued on the same day, the can iasien amplified its reasoning and granted the Mapleton Intervenors' motion of September 3,1976, to M 07310 M f6 g
=\\ q t- + 1 4 1 i' clarify the mattars;to be considered by the' Board. On September 21, L - 1976, the Board called for briefs of the parties specifically requesting I. the parties to provide "any other information they consider responsik 1-I to the C
- asion's direction that the briefs 'da h all required steps.'"-
Furthermore, the Board sebadnled'a hearing to'" receive evidence from i- - the parties on the factors set out on page 9 of the Omniasion's General Statement of Policy insofar as they are applicable to the ,~ Midland. case, and on-any other pertinent matters relating to suspension." i. This information was repeated in.the Board's notice setting a-hearing issued the~same' day. The Board on October 21, 1976, - after noting that the ACRS letter had been rehrmad for clarification, and stating' that during the sus-pension hearings a prehearing conference would be held to sharpen 7 I - '?the issues to be tried.in the reopened proceeding," discovery.was opened "with regard to energy conservation and to 'the issue of Dow [ Cbde=1 Company's current involvement," and written testirony was i ordered ~ filed for the;.upe=4ng suspension hearing. The Board on October 21, 1976,- in denying Fg leton Intervenorc' motiontodecidethesuspensionissueon'legalbriefs,stabedoncemore f that'.the guidelines in the Cn=4=sion's' General Statement of Policy f ' issued August 13,1976, "should be applicable to this suspension ' U ~ hearing." i- ' The Cermiasion on Novem'er.5, 1976, issued an order in this pro-o cM4ng which repeated the Cewmiasion's instrucrim of August 16,-1976 1 ..a;.
~ - to this Board to consider tFa following issues: 4 " energy. conservation as a partial or emplete substi-tute for construction; any changed circumstances-concaming the need of Dow CN=dcal Company for process' steam and the impact of the continued opera-tion of Dow's fossil fuel generating facilities; clarification of a repre by. the Advisory Ccmnitte,e on Reactor Safeguards ' -but directed the Board to defer consideration of "the envia.v rieml effects of nuclear waste disposal and fuel reprocessing." The-Cirmission also stated that "[n]o sufficient reason has been showt. to change our instructions (of Septaber 13, 1976] to the reconvened Licensing Board." On November 30, 1976, the Board stated in opening the hearing that "[t]he pardenlav issues were energy conservation as a partial or complete substitute for construction of the facility; any cha.ged circ'.unstances concerning the-need of Dow Chanical Company for process steam, the impacts of mneirn=d operation of Dow's fossil fuel generating facility; clarification of a report by the Advisory Cemittee on Reactor Safeguards and the enviw"neal effects of nuclear waste disposal and fuel reprocessing." (tr. 4) The Board 4=adiately noted that the fuel cycle issue was deferred. (Tr. 6)
1,_ c, s. 4- - With respect-to the factors to be considered, the Licensee said: "On remand the emmission reconstituted this Board and instructed.it.to reopen tl3 hearing in order to consider. the' remanded issue and initially to consider the question of- [ whether the construction permi.ts should be continued, undified l_ or suspended panding the conclusion of the remanded _ hearing. e 'Ibe rmmission insanacted.the Board to conside the fol-lowing ~ points in maldng its detet.Hination with regard to continuation, modiN*4nn or suspension of the construction pezmits: 1 First, whether signiN cant adverse environmental l dapacts will occur if construction coneim== during the 4 period necessary to cmplete the remand proceedings _; Mmd,: whether reasonable alternativeswill be l foreclosed by concimed construction as -proposed; Third, the effects of a delay in construction; i -Fourth, whether the cost-benefit balance will be tilted to increased investment;.and-i Fifth,' general public policy concerns, including j the' need for the project, the extent of the NEPA ' violation, and the ri=14 ness of the objections raised." -(Tr. 145a6). 9 f y ---gy + g --p-ry n-+- p ig p+u 9y ) T
. re4 ming the Licensee stated: "Now, ultimately this Board will have to determine the following: 1 First, whether, on the, basis of the Chsion's further generic study of the-fuel cycle issue, the cost-benefit balance will a have been ".ered to such an extent that this and other nuclear - q . plants should not be constructed. Second, whether, given such a reduction in demand pro-jections as can reasonably be anticipated in light of reasonably available energy conservation taeasures, there is still a need for the generating capacity of this plant. Third, whether the ACRS letter.has been adequately clarified and whether, on the basis of such clarification, any serious unresolved safety problems exist which cocpel the conclusion that the plant.should be ege wp1.lately modified. 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 ttat the cost-beefit balance has been tilted against construction of the . plant." (Tr. 146-7). 4 9
4 6-1 The Licensee in its opening statement said: "'Ihe issues remanded are: First, the Cour.t directed the Cczani.ssion to undertake 4yter late consideraticn of waste disposal and other unaddressed fuel cycle issues. Second, it directed the ceasicn to give further consideration to energy conservation measures for the reduction of consumer deand as a possible alternative to construction of the plant. In other words, to consider the potential effect of energy conservation on deand pro- ' jections, and therefore, on the need for power. It directed the Comission to return the ACRS rersort to the ACRS for clarification'of the reference in the report to -- and I quote: "... other problems rehted to large water reactors." The Court also stated that it assumes that on remand the Chasion would also take into account any cbanged circun-stances regarding Dow's need for process steam and Dow's intentions relating to continnM operation of its fossil fuel generating facilities." (Tr. 144) d c- -v- + es e
.s l' Thus, the issues have been idanHfied by the Cor % by the Cmmhsion and by this Board. We further consider that Licensee has made a ramammhle statement of what the issues for the suspension hearing ~ ~ ara. We expect that the parties will continue to d4 = gree on what svidence is relevent to a resolution of those issues. We expect to continue to handle those questions as they arise. A.: far as procedure is: concerned, we early stated that Licensee should ' proc'.:ed with its witnesses in the order that it chose. This h.u been knocked somewhat askew because of the Dow request that witnesses from that c Coupany 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 l by reason of Intervenor's motion to e nluda witnesses. But we intend to proceed next with Mr. Howell, Mr. Aynxx1, Mr. Youngdahl and-the Dow people. After that we will-finish with other Consumer's witnesses and than move into the Staff presentation and to that of,the Intervenors. When the ). suspension hearing has been completed we will consider the issues to be heard on the remand case. It is. ordered that the issues and the procedures in this suspension hearing are as. stated in this l':rw.msfum. KR DE A'KMIC SAFEIY AND -LICENSING l Prederic)cJ.M:oural( Cbnirman Dated-at Bethesda, Maryland this 31st. day lof. January,11977. .~
- a-1'.
_w, ,-,,e e ,--%,,-.w --r-
g .J UNITED ST!.TES OF A>CRICI NUCl. EAR RI:GUI.ATORY COSD:ISS10:3 In the Matter of ) ) CO:: SEERS PO':ER COMPANY ) -Docket No.(s) 50-329 ) 50-330 i (Midland Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2) ) } ) i )' CERTITIC.\\TE OF SER'!!CE 1 j I hereby certify thct I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon ench person designated on the of ficial service'lir.: ce= piled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceedin; in I accordance uith the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations. I 4 Date' ,shington, D C. his 3 197 day of 6 ,fyf . f &ll C_ Office of icSecretaryortpCo==ission )
~ m# ; s f. j y.m. m. g; 'y. . 1, i l UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s - x 4 . ) -)
- {
- In'~ the ' Matter 'of c
) )- . m. 4[
- CONSUMERS. POWER-COMPANY
) cDocket No.(s). 50-329 1 ) 50-330 h J(Midland Plant, Units'l and.2) )- -) + SERVICE LIST-FredericJ.Coufal,Esq.,.ChairmanT Atomic. Safety and' Licensing Board-U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission b . Wsshington,~D.C. 20555 i Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke James --'A. - Kendall, Esq.
- Atomic Safety =and. Licensing Board Currie and Kendall-1 135 North Saginaw Road U.Sh Nuc1 car Regulatory, Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Midland, Michigan. 48640 1 -Dr. J.;Venn. Leeds, Jr.
- Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
-10807-Atwell . Consumers Power Company Houston, Texas.;77096 212 West-Michigan Avenue -g-Jackson,. Michigan '49201-l Office of the Executive Legal Director i Counsel-for NRC Staff- . William J. Ginster, Esq.. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Merrill. Building, Suite:4 ~ Washington', D.C. 20555. .Saginaw, Michigan 48602 iMyron M.. Cherry, Esq. Milton R. Wessel, Esq. 'One IBM Plaza ~ Dow Chemical 1 Chicago, 111inois 60611 ~4 Litt1ccLane- - White Plains,-New York'~10605 D . Harold F..jReis,.Esq. Lowenstein', Newman,'Reis &-Axelrad Honorable Curtis G. Beck 10,25(Connecticut' Avenue,N.W. . Assistant Attorney General. 1 Washington, D.C. '20036. State offMichigan e ~ Seven? Story 0ffice; Building
- Honorabic Charles ' A.D Briscoe 525 West Ottawa l
lssistant Attorney General' Lansing, Michigan '48913-- - Sta te. of ~ Ka'nsas ' Lee 1Nute,:Esq. ! Topeka,1 Kansas -66612' Michigan Division-Irving(Like,;Esq.; .The Dow Chemical ~ Company 'Reilly,fLike a.ndLSchneider:
- 47. Building 1 1
- 200fWcat Mainistrect; Midland,cMichigan 48640
-Babylon,.New York 11702: ..u s s ~ q- .us. U. 4 m u J.=
+ y
- w~.
.a. mc
- ;. u.,; *
- ~. - :-
W+ s G A 150-329,S-330-page'2- ). :. C' .j i Anthony Z'.'Roisman, Esq. s
- Roisman,DKc'ssler and Cashdan.
- 1025:
15th5 Street', N.W. j d - Wa shington',
- D.C.
- 20005 U ~1 il <1: [ David.'J."Rosso,Esq. ' ('
- -R.' Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
'j
- 4
-C' . Ish'am, Lincoln-6 :Beale' l i 1050 '-17th' Street, N.W.
- Washington,~D.C. ' 20036
,S. ,l p .p, 'Cary1;A. Bartelman, Esq. j.
- Isham,1 Lincoln-&.Beale
}l
- 0ne First National Bank Plaza j
- y Chicago, Illinois.60603~ 'T -{ : Ms. Mary'Sinclair~ ~ l]t -
- 5711 Summerset Street j
Midland, Michigan 48640-
- Mr.-Steve Gadler,,P.E.
2120 Carter Avenue St.- Paul, Minnesota :- :55108' s Grace Dow Memorial Library. 1710 West St'.' Andrew-Road .I -Midland, Michigan :48640: l "l 4 ~ 1 ~ I i 1 5 = g r k 7 ./ ~ 4 w ,1 g '2 / s - __gt ,%,}}