ML19344A069

Responds to Applicants 760823 & 26 Motions for Recall & Reconsideration of NRC Order Directing Reconvening of Aslb. Recommends Denial Since NRC May Issue General Policy Statements W/O Public Views.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344A069
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee, Midland  File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	09/07/1976
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8007290926
Download: ML19344A069 (11)

Text

&c p%w w w:ks% p@p%.4 %w.n g ug.&.m.plr t w

%~ %,p+ n"MMk%DMMihMUM$$NO3D9dS@95 m$W m

$$$713$af.3 L Amewx:c ww;W WC ws 7

en aw* 4 s wym M M &c:O wnm..,,

m -

m:ma w

m n

%M gkwgg y, e ",,y

.,, %; : 1 "

mMQ g

Wa

~>

+

w..%m :Dyjy%:Q;y &a,m,N Q s W % W z.3:

M,m.m."

&y v

ne..mp 9

r e P *%..yja1. n " W.,

Q g

.,% y ;.

g~

• ; m.

3. y V x

~ >,..

- NO, n;&,

)y

, w '

_m.m w'

-m,r u,y se

,, i.

Q6P i.

L: ' '

+n.. X %f. +

W$/;@j&,W@OjT4:$7%C7%fj% W ITED:STATESLOF AMERICA >

_' ;SEP/ T, R R_@y n

>.0 ~ ~

J-d ;d :y:

.<A 3~-

u M ; % % W r W W,tf C ", M/S ' i * 'WE. 'l$ ' %E ll( @

'..>s F

e W

1 2

5p

~^

EMWW&. b,,MS.,.. n,. E,.' Wh '

, NUCLEA_R REGULATORY.5 COMMISSION '.

M;

=

s

.a,a.n...w. -

c,. s.ca os n

wi n<.ms;,... o-

,.a

.. <,a

.y~,

.w,

,4....4

.,a

- -p t

? %, m @, W JW,i g.3 8EFORESTHEJCO M SSION M a

nm : m @; m%.4

't*7 "QN3 fi M

e n

xn m.u a

+

.ss s.

ww a' +.. o':...<. uu y^ 2 &,m

.m, y wws., m,,

x T

w w... n. n ' V.

.+In\\the Matter:ofW

.r * :v,. C,

~

- t~

c r

M c.~

..~.

r x

~

we wr w w

~n.

~....

F, '... fv p yW,,

f.,L %. "

r.9W!#..b.M

.W"s e

W@e~h MWVERMONTiVANKEEiNUCLEAR POWER: CORPORATION ;o

Docke0. No 0 50-271 f J

u

~

w. y e.

g..

u.. ~. =. -

,,p,.,..

~

M$

~

s

,,7(Vermont.1. Yankee! Nuclear. P.o.we.r St.ation)?

M. M o

.m

.,~.s

- g

1. • y'? ( ) '., :

'y 4

.'i>

g

j..

,,_f 9

,e,gg,,

s

-4 U a..J-Y g

,.,.r.

V %f-g t i., - +

4;C

."j',.r

-t4

..r_. 9 s.

Q Q ",

^*

. ~ 3, :,

p s

@+;f ?. n d,qIn the Matteb of M fp s<-

As, y

s

~,

.m n.

n.

w

~(

4 P

[.

t

.j',.S /

c

. &. x

~-

- J CONSUERS'. POWER,C0WANYf.

LDocket~Nos ~,50 329,1 M, ' %

50-m,..

E s

+og N(Mid1hdPl, ant, Units 1;and;2)"

p L).

l+y w

u,

,w-um g

i d',

u.:_

e

,a

+

s J ANSWER 0FfNRC STAFF TO MOTIONS:0F E<.

. VERMONTiYANKEEENUCLEAR' POWER CORPORATION AND-E 14 7 w A

~ '

3

' CONSUERS' POWER 1 COMPANY;FOR RECALE AND RECONSIDERATION 1 2-

.0F:CO M SSION ORDER DIRECTING: RECONVENING'0F' c

iASLB T0' CONSIDER CERTAIN MATTERS' 7

?'*

_+ ~ ~

s.

e. - x r.

s i.,....

., p,.

. z-v-

~

.;, W J0nl Au. gust 16..1976,3theiNuclearLReg latory Conveission issued'a General i

x Statement of Policy toLindicate howfittintended to implement' the. two:

m.

.ys, f

.l.

w recent and,. lated decisions by the'-United. States Court of AppealsL for

.y 3

t i.

4.

i re

,:.a,

~

+

~

b, Lthe. District.of Columbialin Natural Resources Defense Council, et al..

x, c

s QkN6s.o74-13851and 74-1586 (July 21,1976) 'and Aeschliman.'v. NRC,

^ '

i u

..lJ

,Nos. 73-1776 and 73-1867=(July 21,1976)g With rega.rd to the Vermont-k Yankee license'atiissue in NROC v. NRC, the' Court remanded the order' N,..

o A

_ g Mp b

J

+i[

grantin'g the full term license. With regard to the Midland construction

. r,L: :

'"'-J 2

. e...

.e

,t I

%. m, '.~. W 1*An; Atomic: Safety /and-LicensingBoafd...EbefreconvenedEfdr

^

g K

r WR $@ 7 T a the411mited: purpose of:considering, tin: light of theifacts:

JcM F ME MJW ??

C c.." %jand applicable:lawf:whether:thellicense forithat;facilityshould be continued, m

-.. Mf -

E W y

• E ^ f ddfuehcycle; rule:hasfbeen;mdeleffective;"' -

'Q~,

c'

[

g

~ z cg7 ; % w w,3f n i.

s 2 ; '

.a l.The.Connissionlaisofindicated?thatsthe' evidentiary hearing on' the other!-

y m m..

.. e-e-.

w:

.~

n n*.. g: -

- Jss..ues requiredlinMidla;nd would be~cconenced when th.e. Midland ~ decision.

1 2-. p,

..?

e

~.

0~

r t

c-3r, seisaelNnain' g;f y,'p f

'L

=

f f

y

.w,: $.

. {L L

L

-i

.es.

.. 3

+

2%_

2 0n~ August;23.1197p,iVermontlYankee1 filed a motion with the Comeission t

M n

. ( ?; -

1; "For: Recall /and ~ Reconsideration /of! Order Directing Recohvening of ASLB Lto Cdn

2..

.f

,,px.

s

. =*

e 3

s

sider. CertainzMatters." $0n'- Aug9st 26,1976,.ConsUm.ers Power Co.Y(Midland) '

E isimilarlyf filed'a' motion with the~ Connission.J"To Recall:Show Cause-E

~

~

i

-Proceedings.". Inasmuch.as;the two actions are so closely.related 1n s

y.

purpose and argument.2[the Staff will' treat them jointly herein.

+-

s.

..., ~

C' ^

The} utility companies argue that.(1)'the Connission'is without power to e

a T:.

reopen their licensing: proceedings absent the issuance.cf a mandate t

i

=from thefCourt of Appeals, (2) the Commission's action was pre-I,

~

j

.'i.

!cipitous and imperils, the'se and other construction permits and operating licenses "and (3)-the commission should have obtained the views of the

' parties and!public prior to issuance of. the General Statement of Policy and resul. ant Orders.-

. 1-I As'explaUad;more fpily below, the Staff believb that the limited.

- reactivatM.. 'of D ese two' proceedings, as announced by1 rder.and I

^

0

g v.

');18 ton filed by Consumers Power Co. explicitly adopts the legal'

~

y f

51 arguments made in the yersont Yankee motion. fn. p. 2.

j cgn4[,..

~ lyNeither' proceeding'was L" closed" in the ' sense that final agency and"

.H

, w : Judicial; review had been completed.-

gg:

L 4

. - v

~

l i M u,_ C,

1; 3

p.,

4'.

u wg

,e im

,q kI '

J, ' 1

[g[

-j.

l m

%se m.s

- +

..m.

$ F M ? f, $ u %n m@M @d R W S M., M+ g

%WM3S

$ 3 4f D M M f Q@ M @ 2 M N %j % M,4* R LT4M Q%3ME4R SU MeJJM&M i

htu a w m

-v

a. s.n np

+~.

~

un Y

s G

.;j.

_ fh hY

~

I*

~;

1. ~

s!%lnjyng%gy;;jqiS:.R Q", e rM

g. :4

-; g

/. :

x y~

~

Q g

?

7

~

w;F mp;bmAn e,

..3s n.x n., ~.

m -

~

m.v a.

2 Wow,

Jx -

~

. v. va. m o

s

~

~

~ --

%M&;(pw% l$ w., < w wee

.s

. a 5-.

l..

,h ytn 1 QFWpkf l TW,.19;.

2 r

$fM@Q: ~ Federal? Register Motice of August ~16.;1976 bis clearly within the scopelh

p n

,.n-

k% %

c.. :: :

+

~

Jef the1 Commission's power;(<thetitheiactions (instituted by the Commission -

,#y h-Qvf :

.u 1

i s

c-m w k 3.U,m[ i[werelcl.iaElyNthalpEb11c(inture5t;.and that<the Commission.is' empowered' <

n

~

n.

-y me :. g ny w, s.

P i@

', -;toitssue' General: Policy.5tatementsLwithout first'obtainingLthe vieus' ofi

~-

.eg +.

Mthe parties >or public..

m

-~ -..

g *,

1. )'

%f

<g 1

y w n ;,

'y

~ '

. ;/-

4

• p, -

1(1)l NRC:is authorizedito rm licensino ereceedines'without awaitinc

+

o y

~

.the issuance of the court's mandate..

[

)

e,

<;r The ~ companies challengeithe:powerlof the Commis* ion to reopen their m

7 m

' licensing-proceedings pri.or to the issuance of the mandate fmm the Coirt ofLAppeals, re. lying on s' single case Gill v. C.I.R.IThe'5taff

~~ ~

believes that the fact that the mandata has not issuedEis no bar to y.

c m

h %,

~ 1 action by the Commission, and'that the~ utilities' reasoning ignores a eW;

' cardinal principle of Federal [ administrative law that has been in a

~

[ '-

t Leffect for over.a quarter century.

n

, i c

jQ1, v.- C.I.R. is only in point if tho' Cennission on judicial review v

t 3

W' nlm

, stands in the same position as a District Court en appeal. However 1

/

what is.at issue bare-is 31,the relationship of Federal courts &

3Q 3,, mandate from Court' of Appeals to' District Court) but rather-e

~

tthe effect of a sendete (or lack thereof) from a court to.an administrative h

y g 308 U.i Sgt (5th Cir. 1962).

i o

7 1

j/ We m erstand that the mandste in 11 is'aheut'to 1' sue. As

~

s swe tw I to Cennission's General 5 Policy. once-the mandete m

-issues Se Md3and Licensing leard will he essenesed to hear and r

f s#

ad cida;tne other<1ssues remanded in Midland, and as an incident to a

r,7; A

.that g,mer, to estertain any requests for a stay or suspensten of the m

f

. Mdland construstlen permits-pyding completten of the Wsend preenedingsiestheotherissues.n (x 1;

.s,. t t

a

1. Y' 3

5 4.,

_s.l1:'y

~ '

['

'(N;;)[4 *~

e

,+

hV p'

s s

- n qc.

.o

. w.

r

& L Q-s2 '_ f, q%,?

.l :.,

3" e

q 3

s

-...,~

s l*h.'..

' N$). Q;%

[g1

- ': y>;..

a l %

_x,

n;:ns - wS w;.m..

- m' '1...y nw.. m%,x;e aq c-es ~

n w-

, ? ae,ug~, *, -, :;p:l a

1. y. g

%q

.. b:

f it rll Ys

^ -

s u.

ew.w.

tiW?yk ~ QANMg% V; f, w'

s;w^ s,

4: 7: : 3 : y,;:

-n A

m n, w n,.. x,'

W-

-,?

T.

s c

3, w,

q

,e, V [,C,[JM 7'. wu ','. 7 $,'..

T go.

y 94'

+

< N

. r-

/ y[.

r*~

m N,

a

~

q gj.

.y jf

n g' 3

e,,<

." agency;MSupreme: Court has recognized for over a quarter century 4 ~ - p y.

1 g,

,o I

S

.v q

..+- ; +

"J,that.significantl differences-exist as;to the procedural rule ~s. which 4

~

govern the: interaction lof courts as opposed, to_ tha' interaction Letween

' {

courtsLand admin'istrative agencies.' In F.C.C. v.'pottsvillt Broadcasting J,'

~.

h.U the' Supreme ~ Court stated:-

' ~m.

e_ v g#

1 A review

.a federal court of the action of a louer court is" only one se of a single unified process. ' But to the-extenti '

s that'a ral court is authorizeito review an administrative act.there :is ~ superimposed upon.the enforcement of -legislative.

policy through administrative control a different process

' that out of which the administrative action under review ",from ensued. The technical rules derived from.the interrelationship of judicial tribunals forming a hierarchical-system are,taken out of their environment when mechanically applied to determine the extent to'which congressional power, exercised through:a delemtad ageng. can be controlled within the limited scope of

?

1 f "jud' cial, poner conferred by Congress under the Constitution. E i

I In pottsville Broadcastine, the Supreme Court was spect'fically review-f n

m ing whethe+ the scope of the administrative agency actir,n was limited 8

ly the mandate of a Court of Appeals and concluded the's it was-not.

This is so because of the unique nature of the respnsibilities and

-authorities cenferred upon administrative agencies by Congress.

n l

• /7/her.e differences in origin and function preclude wholesale trans-

. plantation of the rules of procedure trial, and review which have evolved from the history and experience of; courts.E

~

'It is thus incorrect te view the Commission as District Court. thereby..

v esteppo6.

m acting until the Court of Appeals issues its mandate.

i p

c

. [

y 309 U.!.1M (1939).

3

.. If Id.. at<141.-

y Id., at MR-143 i

r i

,0 G

j 4

=

4 9-4

q w#*kWMNww w?d J"TQW/dh;ows'pg7M,h,

'A

.7 we n.n --

O W DWA$g y$3d8?y$h'k/8j'NGh'9:f7dMPs%P;'CYspan-mi

_i b

k go c

p s^[NO? D O N Ea-w @~ ",@dE N@q@unt.A k'

h[MPM$ J da) mEMM ;

C w ;I p

J'.,f;.;).? ? jf,.m' A.

wll }M.Y y'

m:; :

w ~- w

-F n

qLf;f j V, y.,, f

%,.p.

m 3

s.,,,, % W,1??~y. Q. 3 - -w Q

t

%)

- ? - gy 4 -

' QA ".

E k

!.h.',. JNE.:6.S p. ? M,.,Q.... gl,; i N Q e:

' GQly ' y' lL.M_,. l.,

.53.v

8 y.

'.r.

j, m

g

.,~

4, 5;",

-m m

.-. S. mgappy/

. > eg :g, g;f,,,.

w,,

. w a..~-15? 1 1

p m a: n,;, ', :' ; 4- %.. w ;'

e c.n p.

.n

-1.

my g p.

1 -

g w:

v

~;

%~. -

x s?,

y%.r ;

QMv:i.v

-w-."

c 4..

c:

i

,,y...

.s, on may act sua'sconte"on!matterslundersitsLjurisdiction and,1 1

7%. ee o

... a g

l 44,, E s:JThe Consissi.

x g

TWj=y ' yy3

,;49 a w.

w.

O;

- n asian.administrativa agency, need not await'a.cou'ts mandat('to' issue'

.A

[

,y

.c

'R'

. As. the; Court : indicated

• l L. %

y

,T,

to L require :a"particular 11 censing : proce.eding.

.. +

...,.. +. ;...

p.,

p~~

m

• r

...a r

.s c

t

.e in Pottsv111esit is~welliettablishad that administrative.agenciesh

~

y m

g: <

s s.

.. w 3

- ;"have power themselves to initiatehinquiry or, when their authority i

l

@?

s a

is involveduto control-the range of. investigation in ascertaining,,

~-

3

g _

37, what;isito satisfy the requirements of the public interest....N f"

1

~

Vermont Yankee' acknowledges-the inherent power of the Consission to1 reopen its own rulemaking proceedings on the fuel cycle issues.E We' o

y

[

=

E 6elieve that there ;it no real distinction to b6 drawn between the' t

}

I

[

inherer.tl power to reopen the rulemaking and the inherent power to m

4 -

s

~

reopen the licensing proceedings. particular1y where, as here, the

[

r

}

t Y rulemaking proceeding will.likely serve as a necessary underpinning n

- s I

to both licensing decisions. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

s

[

L;

("Act") specifically provides in section 187 that'the terms and -

1

[

. conditions of all licenses are subjset to revision by reason of rules i

t l

and reguletions issued in accordance with the Act.E The interim t

i

}

rule on waste management and reprocessing s one of the rules within

~

I[

the. scope of section 187 that could very well give rise to a revision

~

g t

a l.

j/ Id., at 142.

[

f

^

jg/ Vennt

- Yankee metten, pg. 3.

s

'l

& The Car desion's regulations also specifically provide that all f

11eenso are subject to revision by reason of rules, regulations.

er ordats of the Cemetssion. 10 CPR H 0.54(h). -

~

8 g

S l-t m.

.g ;

1 N

.p s

.e A.

f

}

--pn ap q

khENN..NT$M;em' M,..

...,g,N v$$m~bh$m 'NU N;$ M+ M W ; M' D N N b 9 b

52 5 m:p 4 %e ndy Jn;;&:pg j. p, e% e ugn m

m w

.y W ww

~ x~,, l +p.

y

,g : -

W

& Q;Lp,,:A:s -

,s

~~wW

.n v :p' w

g wwnww ab g

.3 r

s4@A.;g Q g f

• m' 7 e

m,4-

+

. ~ %, g:N+M k P. c '. -. 3'..

. W 5

+

d ' h,M#h,W6 ' ' ' if 6 D

s

.s w

$m. w e: n 3d M,'

i.t.:

'U

.s n #m

..p s

gQ}W'ig.]clb,,'%

o Q:-T < Q g ;.- D j,,,, f -u ' J._..'

Mi "piM S, ?

g;-

3

., a s.

- Wh WC ;of th0Vensont Yankee?and Midland licenses.- /

Em

' ;, a..

7 N% qs m;

=

~ 19: :

- sca - mm

'e m> a v..

9 v

s e

.?

lM <m V

y>

, i,.,,,

.f K1 i(2)'$ The' actions instituted by the Cosedssion'wereirmaeanable and

%f:

8x ~f

~'

consistent w1th its resconsibility to the public.-

,.v s

.q...

-n l

@J,;jk c Midland quarrels with the Cosnission's action as;a matter of policy.

s

.w

.~

.s

$~

(asserting that the Coenission's action was_ unfair and precipitous.-

y q

.~

isperiled these and other construction permits and operating licenses.

q.

Land was an invitation 1to " administrative anarchy". We disagree.

We believe that the utilityN assertions represent:a very narrow vieu

~

fof<thelpublic policyfconcerns'at issue. Questions.regarding,the

,y l

~

handling landdisposalofhighlevel-radioactivewasteswhich, absent

-careful safety precautions, will remain dangerous for thousands of w

r.

years, have been at the forefront of public concern and debate on l

nuclear pouer for the past several years. While progress is new beir.g made teuard election of an alternative method for disposing of the e

- wastes. th. fact remains that the long-term high level rodfonctive weste' disposal' issue is one of the major issues-if not the pre-aminent' issue-beclamiing the long-term future of ligh't water nuclear y

?.

.pener reacters. Is this c,antext a holding by a U.S. Court of Appeals c

f that'a priar AEC deteneinetten of the magnitude of environmental 1spects-j w,

from redienctive weste disposal was without adequate foundation has g

l:

,12/ This",herent peuer to roepan proceedings and re-enemine issues

,t *

^Wr good r ;ues sentfests itself 'in several other ways. - thder Leesties led of the Atomic Emery Act of.1354 as andaded.' the C-Comtester sur vevehe a' license because of.,i,n,,ge,,uli. " conditions...

e.

sdnah wou.1 unrreet the Cennission to refuse to grant a license en an t

4' 7er131 eel appliestion."'and under 19 CFR Hr.202 and 2.20s the censission eny for good cause 1'estitute a proceeding. to amend er suspend a license l'

,,ji

D Iosessee of a show eense order, either en its aus initiative er en s

ey f regnest of a third party.-

n%

r_'

y

-m-c

?y i

WWun%,. w w, g^ y + a; w: wm m, n8: -

~ mm.n w mm.:s w's}ym% y -

np

,;, ;m r 3.

s m

3.y m a n e

g'

=N'- ' g.

p::c.

' f{. gi - d

-y,

6. g E

. g,

gm -W4-, # ';;

g%. sc W;3 n-u

-s J

~

s

n Zn.,L N.

k,

Q

~_

O'

+ '

M s

u,

-7..

y y

y

-- n T$,

. 'y_,

l..

^

7fJ m

", i f fpublic; policy, implications that transcend legal technicalities regarding

+:.

x

, f'~"

~

(finalityfoflthe decision ~ ori he expense and inconvenience that may bei

~,( ~

t u

. ~.

~

Jincurred by several electric utilities.-

m

,1 y

d' in. -

. Progress on these issues is being made on several fronts. A programmatic

~

ienvironmental impact statement on highflevel radioactive waste management- ",

~

(; ^

is~ under preparation by the Energy Research and Development Administra--

~.

• Ltion, and the Consission'sLstaff is working both on regulatory criteria i

3

~

for.high level radioactive management and a revised analysis of the environmental impacts from reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal.

It is fair ara reasonable that progress should be made in the b

~

' licensing area es well, and certainly fair and reasonable that the two Jesses directly tapacted by the Court of Appeals' decision be given

"'.+t expedited consideration in this regard.

Yes, the Verment Yanked and Midland licenses are "isperiled" in the' 4

I i

sense that proceedings regarding; suspension of these licenses have commenced. Neuever it.is important'to recognize that proceedings have only commenced. Me action can be taken to suspend fthe licenses encept in accordance with strict' rules designed to accord due process to the

'affected utilities. These proceedings will be conducted in the highly

-structurec fremenerk of 'the Cassission's " Rules of practice" in 10 CFR l

Part 2. W rules, reasonably implemented.-should preclude any so-1

-es11ed "a ulaistrative anarchy."

.p f

.i 1

j c

i l

55

. *i -

y 1

C-.

{

f. W

't I

h h

dq+.3

.(

y 4

w e

?, a #F@M@w%n@WsM@@g< s.;%@gnn/ s' W@i m,.. z W

MFMEB rGML_.MM@nn, xn. S.Q.~%<,,

y,'

MMMM n

nm

,.m;., MM3g.pls.w;mwz,.y; U::,sov.,pdWWW.4 KW 'n$<.

a p.c.w/. n,w%.mg.s q'*..mw: ;-, w

, m. ;;s.

m ~.. v

.:ww wq;u %&

wa y

- g:a m.wMc.;1;mw ;g4 p 9 x-2><.....g j,. m tgi% y+ &.

m--

+

mJiu, v.

r, c,

u.o 3 x,# A

..%v a

a q-m-..c<

A

• dyd2d%gw p %9:sSN,% gm;a: -

y y ;.

e p.

-m 77 W Mf u - W:1 c -" -

M. V:t s

qJ y a Rgs, j.w

' +

q' VM:W.m > : e %.,

w w p y g g w.7;., p%gl# W W AyJQ W:CiL W: W 'c: w?*3 C%@

g 8

- q' ' ' 7<

-sW

%O W

r;. i.,

~

..h.

st

_n, w;

,, g n

C.',+

^4 H:

<~?

WWJ9d%%

M@a % g. M & ra;. "l'iN M w v:wcw w% w~&a&s;~ m N+. w+.,.

W

' ?w. &

W M ' 98 :l#,,

Y v

~M j~

D@x w

2&n

~

n-T v

's

a. -

M $ [w w., y c am.

w to[payVp' rice.cThey(aswelllas%

$yy$w@M ' MThi util tiites: aref bei s

if r;G M.

.~ R. ;n W v mz ' +.

W -

d

c. ~.

g g

ticipating :

1

,7

- c

.w w

gm y

?

. ~

3 m;,4,in su a..spensionrproceedings0 *Itfis 'certainly-conc ivable1(but b'.y no +

i e

n m.w.r w.y,

,g

-.'a'

~.4:

,n, a

n means cartain),?thatlone or morellicenses.may;be suspended.MBut we g m y, a

m..

w.

'3

. ^

-g

&,, M-

.f fsuisitlthat the'priceiis a.reasonab.le.one., and;one.which the Co.mmissio,.n

,e

+

v e

m

/ iand+'.the;public.has'a right:to: expect be paid.1 M,

w,g

7. /

Q wc

^

1

g

~

0,

'(3)" The Casuiission ma.y issue General Statements' of Policy and Memorandum

.[

and orders without first obtaining views of parties or:public. m t

<s

,a a

~

a r

I

'W

=The-subject Mem,orandum:and Orders were issued in accordance with a a

i

?,

directive in the Commission's General. Statement of Policy.- :A General i

-w l

Statomsnt' of Policy is one mechanis'm available to the Cosmission to J

4 ya

apprise the publ'ic and affected licensees on matters-of-interest to 4%

4 m

<d 1

.the agency;and'the public.

In this case, a General Statement of n

.y F,

- Policy was the form chosen irthe. Consission' for enunciating its j

interpretation and taplementation of the two courydecisions.

v c

=

F The Staff aelieves that the' mechanism chosen to apprise the'public s

F

~ and affected licensees.we' entirely appropriate and in accordance e

y u

.with law. The General Statement of Policy is an appropriate way to prerptly. c anciate^ policy in the face of a judicial decisi.on in this a

m i

y j '

sensitive tukject area.3 -Indeed issuance of a Statement of Policy.

t 11

- without.p., or pub 11c comment, was the method ~ chosen by the AEC to.

preuptly r; spend t0the Caivert'C11ffs decision.E

~

n, g+

Canamien Isplementation of Natesesl Enviriennental Policy Act of M Wa

, ))(31989.38 Fed.; Reg.18071(9-Septemer1971)..

w s

a s

e, 3

,s

.t-

,l

+

~j d;

Q:

t

.v

~

n

'41 4

4 1

• Q)#.. ;.

, ' dj N m

~

~

4.----

m, i ' Wl

~

^

IV:

T m

e n lg-L

'm MW,

a w M W r.$f,a %g2 W;m@m.cm AWM W M3 Wm'V. M W W W W W;w<'k Wv r&;

s

u..

n mp

. mew. :n Mg%q;p%pm%w a 4 agl..e.m&O 4;+:v:x e

a w.

n n wg.. 4 %..

c._ w % % W : a 1,

. W;'. 3;@:..- /

M w ~

f. -em.fw -

M

, r

.v.

x;, &m%ww.? s.x,.. ~ w r.n:m. g.a%c.

• p y

x ymm'A p90m:

v m s, r

s m%.

,n

s ng c.g&,;; w y~.g wn:.,

MD

,y.

x.

n

~

a 9 y.m.w..

9,.

?. q g.a~.:

w.. ; m.u L;g

- m c-;n..

qN Tys % a y, 3.4 " %w.

P ascu p W; p p v.-+.Q z

n

, r :.

• ~

m

-Y n -

x...qn pm.. n. f

. 9' ; ;e 1

sp wn. mg~ -

na' 3l.L_

.w

.. 3=.

,m.

.% \\ f v

i w ' @f i ":; gp ';.i 7 ^" 7 ;g e ;;v:( qper '

7(, p?_

s

.i

p l,,.,._,_

l-

_2 +^ />3;y i

'c

)Qd Wuv.

a "4-

~^ ~.

S.,

q@y t w jF.

's t

- v. :

C r%,. c urthemore; prior:public?or 11.censeeiconsent:isinot required by law.--

na x, w- -,,, g :., m. -,

. *, m.-

_v

~.

~

g>,:4 4.

$v..

[Sectfonf4laofsthesAdministrativeiProcedure:Act specifically exempts v.

~

s.

f

6. m@Q,A '

. p, e e, m-.

, e.w..

ww 1_

s m

y>W $ - 7"..l genera 1LstatementsJ ffpolid"(freef the? gen z

f

[u

.n

-c, u...,,a y,.....,.,.

. r.

1.

~

-- y e

.Y.. ~p.

s

,S;w k.

s v

-WPub,11c coment(i_nisection;4Wa'nd(the1U.S. Court of.' Appeals,for the,

r, 8

-~ * -

.,.,,,_2, n,

4 a

tp/ r*

.. +

m.

o.

~

Q;, y %a D Cl Circuit:has.recognizedithatl" administrative'actionT a,kenipriorL of t

t s.

~

s

(

%fu11Iheding heslalw4ys!beenh.ednissible' when(the-state's'interesh;

~

-m~ -.

g

]@.

(

~

m 1-k;..

f.

. q;r:'

F-M

in a.7, ting promptlyito; promote,thel general welfare 1 outweighs;the indivi.

n -

g d0al'MinteYesvtSinlhavi.ng an opportunity to be heard before the state

.~@'*

fa f:actsiperhaps.in error.lin ways that may cause him significant injury."M a

t s-t

- As the Staff hasl demonstrated in (2) above, this is indeed a case.where-

, N" = *

.w 1.the public(interest required a prompt Connission' response lwithout prior:

g,,

c:i

opportunity for< comment M e

~

s:

In..any event, the entertainment of the instant' motions demonstrates -

the Commission's willingness.to entertain.the views of affected licensees.

' For the foregoing reasons, the subject motions should be denied.

i-

~

.7i

(

Martin L naisen

~

Counsel for NAC Staff I

+*

e I

i a[

JX hiemf Concerned' Scientists' v.j[Q,. 49g F.2d 106g,1081 (D.C.

~

n, N-fr. ; gg).

z..

e t

]lf terta.1ytthe Congress expected a' prompt response by the Commission -

to th ' two court f.nquire as to the 'spect of g on Atomic Energy

~

^

ecisions. The'Jo'no Coeur t s

C

. held heart te-1sions and 0.

. t% Crisiss en's msponse to them on August 27 ;1 mg 9 o

4 h-

?b N'3

• I

?y

L

'A ~

[..,,..

• v

~_

.f_

3 fs "

^

' h.-

-ig

."s g

Sk h(

$. ^ p g.. ~{

I

)g t

[,.

Ns JV

' ~ '.

t, g) s If.'

4 g

1 N

t- :

^

w -

j ~ /*',. q !

5r 8

L@

t

,,3..

k.

.[

~

^

,.,, p ' / ans'weey e 4 ',

,,.,3.W,,

.v F 9-

.M 3-4 r

li::..

q $.- m.t w Q' b f. *

.l e ?,

..y f ' =>

s.

p

^

-,q]

., lL G Y-a

,_ 2 3 3

.c h m e; m,

LL, C

.; m m 7: m : p p p, q..a m u m % "n,a g g, 9,. a g c g m.g 9^ m. m:'~

', +

m_..g,_, nn dh swa,gg% M v

p> p y??

91:

5g ~.Epppgi.h, 3.wj p~.d m

• w. p%

Nd mNv 4

3, s

.sg.3

'wj,

,%..w,e

.nuu,, %.~p..

ms wa.;,

g* v:g 'j'- - < _,

w rh2 w

wm.m.

,a,-u

% cf 6,p (y63

f s' a

y /;p A'? r %'t-Q..y. c$? y* p'&p;..+ %

.y n u omq;m g pyg,;mys:p. d,W_p a g% m L

2r*- s ks~.#m *-

r

-v o

, fL.. s f i T-F M

-:;w

^

f:, -

1,,

g' u.

'r' m: y:

m.x,

C A, u t

m.

c

n hy!jf

$F

'O I

]S$$hkh f

p.f%

@ s

• MM ^fd'fOj 7 UNITED'STATESLOF AMERICAl.

+

~'j"

+

M5@21sgaq,;gy '

?

7y MEAR'REGULATORhC0fttISSION gp

,. a e-y ssp..

...a :

2 o-e

--c v.a;.

w'p i %:

. ' j ::p

+

j

.s y

c. ynm*

& ~ ".

i,JEFORE THE COMISSION

^

,,z

gce_

y s

e Y

y

.t

a,.

.n 7;pn~

..:..'t.,.

4 2

1

u.

i --

t rz y,

c r

},

7 4;v,yT tin' the Matter.ofe

.q s

41

.VEID10NiiYANKEENUCLEARPOWERCORPORATIONYDocket No.' 502271 1

gz;~

L(Vermont: Yankee:NuclearLPomeristation). h em 7

g,'

y -:. - 5 h

!InithelMatterof a

4

.q P

' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY-Docket Nos.50-32g H

o 50-330~

(4 (Midland Plant',' Units 1 and 2)

+

- +

3 o

y j

)

['

'I hereby ' certify that copies of " ANSWER OF NRC STAFF.TO MOTIONS OF -

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE eRz VERMONT.YAMKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION AND CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY R

H LFOR RECALL ARO RECONSIDERATION OF CC" MISSION ORDER DIRECTIiG RECON-

..1

.?VENING 0FiASL8~ TO CONSIDER CERTAIN MATTERS" in the above-captioned.

proceeding'have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mai1~.. first class.or air mail, or, as indicated by an-asterisk, p

~

cw throughldeoosit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail 0

Ksystem.' this 7th day of September,1976.

L c.-

r.

Robert Lowenstein. Esq..

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1

-i 0

'c

~

Lauenstein. Neuman Reis &' Axelrad Panel u

Eu 11025 Connecticut. Ave.

N.W.

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission j

b T.s tshingter...D.C. 20036 hshington, D.C.

20555 y

Thnman G.' Dipenf Jr.. Esq.

Samuel W. Jensch. Esq., Chairman i

Reges & Gray.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 225 Franklin. Street Board:

C teston, Massadesetts - 02110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.Consission-Washington. -0.C.-

20555

. Chase Stepens

~

a

< Chief. Becketing and-Service.

- David S. Hall. Ph.D..-

m Los' Alamos Scientific LAberstory fi% 4,

MSectie

~

0.5. Nuc1Cr Regslatory Commission -

P.O. Box 1863 DJ

+

PFY m hshingh f D.C.=

20555

- Los Alames ~ New Mexice 87544 Y

• 1 My

( /. ',

. A(.

,j.

3 r

s

~ 'l

,my"3

.{

a

,.g ys 7

s

- - 3x y

~s,

...jy

~,

tI

./

A

_.t

. 8

=

~

1

,ji r

?s. c,,

~,

y e

{ r*

%$$;tWp%:.fWiG7Q f #ad*#E dh% w w % y2yrsW;q;i 5

W= -45' W if mc;; wwnywa e+ % N. M)

%2

, y op m u

, ;p >

wh W-W b

$hjSME-hWQ(s@fi! $[ sl

> M.h.? - j W 4 N ~I'" 5 - ] af V M3!

k. 3 x

'3 's.J s w 7.

a.

$;7Mf &m m 9; t.,., C e

(v.:

.07p '

s. g.

. ',=, n; -

a-z$jf ff y :

~

i l

~

~

'n

ll_

-Y

,. g,,',..

.f-ll;t-[ h~ ?/ $ ta ^ s

,s_

w pH.'

,e, a

s a:

d

Q' J

Q

, x.

m

.x a

w,p w.

m

, Samuel J. Cht'k'

P'auliMb Purdos M

+

1 y ;>

2245 Gulph Hills' Road ~

Secretary of the Commission

U.S.: Nuclear: Regulatory Commission

.d QE

• * :Radnor. Pa. 9 g087j E

' 1 s

jg i

Washington.;D.C.E20555=

cW X

4 0aniel M.: Head."Esq d Chairman' _

~

~

9

.y 1/

Atomicisafety and Licensing Board C

,o LU.SDMuclear.

~ 1ato Commissioni a

(

' >-Washington D.

.(!2055:

-l c

q

' Or.-Emneth'A. Luebke. Member-

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane 1~

A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C.! 20555

~

. 1...

g 10r.EJ. Venn Leeds. Jr..' Member =

'10807'Atwell

)

, Houston.-Texas :77096-o

.'. g a

' James R.-Yore. Acting Chaiman Atomic Safety and Licensing j

gt Board Panti 1U.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

'l Washington, D.C.; 20555 s

I

-i

• W ron M. Cherry. Esq..

1 One IBM Pla:a Chicago.' Illinois 60611~,

a

~

Howard J. Vogel=. Esq.

1 2750 Dean Parkway Minneapolis.8tinn. 55416 The Honorable Vern Miller' Attorney Guere1 u

i i

' Statehouse v

a Topeka,Ks. 66612 Jethony Z. Reismen.-Esq.

BManen. Nessler & Cashdan 1712 N. Strw t. N.W.

Washington. 0.C. : 3D036

Richard E ?yers. Esq.

T Rational Ac surges Defense Ccuncil i

' 917.15th 5" u t. N.W..

Mashington.: 0.C.

30006 T

(

.i fi.-

a

[s i

" '~-

t >

.m'

......g'

.7 ( '

.. [ b : [

3 Ib.

", i.

u.

~*;

, a i..

. _.