ML19339B829
| ML19339B829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Kodner J KODNER, J.L. |
| References | |
| ALAB-601, NUDOCS 8011100228 | |
| Download: ML19339B829 (2) | |
Text
._
'o,,
UNITEDSTATES
?
+
4 8
NUCLEAR ilEGULATORY COMMISSION 4
g g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 g
~
r.[M C,
s
~
~ * * * * * $g e,,',4
's "2
?
~
.C. 7.?hg h
,C November 5, 1980
'f, b k ss sT n Docket Nos. 550-599 9
d f
S50-600 S
2 b
Jan L. Kodner, Esq.
!j 230 West Monroe Street Suite 20J6
-r Chicago, Illinois 60606 g[
In the Matter of
~~
Comonwealth Edison Company, et al.
O es a
(Carroll County Site) 23
Dear Mr. Kodner:
This is to inform you that the time provided by NRC regulations within which the Comission may act to review the Appeal Board decision (ALAB-601) in this docket has expired. The Comission has declined any review.
Comissioner Gilinsky would have preferred that the Commission take review and provided the following coment:
"This is another case in which the importance of the issues, the first delineation of the scope of an early site review, justifies Commission review, if only to summarily affirm."
In connection with his concurrence in no review, Comissioner Bradford provided separate views which are enclosed.
Accordingly, the decision became final agency action on November 4,1980.
Sipcerely, m,.
Samuel J. C Secretary of the Commission
Enclosure:
Separate Views of Comissioner Bradford
[$0b cc: Service List 5' / o 801110 0 g g g
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD I concur that no review is warrar.ted in this case.
However, an early site review could conceivably "significantly affect the qeality of the human environment" within.the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA
[42U.S.C.4332(2)(c)].
Specifically, under the "s'unk costs" rule of 1/
the Seabrook case," an applicant might invest so much in an early site review as to bias the alternative site analysis required by NEPA at the CP stage.
Confronted by such a case, the Commission would have to consider whether the " impact" of the early site approval was sufficient 2/
to triggs a NEPA review.-
-1/
Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 533-36 (1977) 2/
It is not at all clear that such a review would encompass the "need for power" review sought here.
Since an early site review does not J
address the plant itself, the agency's obligation to consider the alternative of not building the plant will not come into play at l
that stage in any case.