ML19344A240

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses 760721 Court Decision Which Suggests That Pressure Being Brought Upon NRC by Opponents of Power Plants.Urges NRC to Proceed W/Generic Proceeding on Fuel Cycle Issues, Whether Decision Appealed or Not
ML19344A240
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee, Midland  File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 08/09/1976
From: Bonner J
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To: Rowden M
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19344A241 List:
References
NUDOCS 8008070611
Download: ML19344A240 (2)


Text

,

N.

)

f f f ' h 3... ~

N l'

C s

00CKET 1;u!aER.. y s,

\\

ER00.&UTil:.fK[f~3-330 PACIFIC O.A.6M.D ELECTR,IC C O M PANT t,

h 77 BCALC STREET

  • S Alv - F R A N CIS CO, C ALIFOR NI A 9 410 6 -

jE,

]

1

- sown r..o==c.

August 9,-1976' 10CKET NUMBER '

~

W 8R00. IUIE E

,p, s N t

f 45 yh

}'

The Honorable Marcus A. Rowden 2

qN

,.3

Chairman, k

h

{

iU. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission h.

'( 1

}

Washington, D. C. 20555 g

d

Dear Chairman Rowden:

V Reports in'the media suggest that pressure is being

.j.,

brought upon the Comnission by opponents of nuclear power to i.

suspend licensing -activities and to. shut down operating nuclear i

power plants as a result of the decisions handed down on. July 21, j!'

1976 by the U.' S. Court of Appeals for-the. District of Columbia i'

Circuit in actions involving Vermont Yankee'and Consumers Power j

Company.

For the reasons outlined'below we' believe that the decisions do not require that this drastic action be taken.

(

('

In the first place the court promulgating the decisions-did;not suggest that either ~of these courses of action be taken.

t The construction permit'in-the Consumers Power decision-was not

[

vacated or suspended,.nor was the operating license in Vermont-Yankee.

This indicates that the Court is of the view that such drastic action'is unnecessary.

In'the:second' place the i,ssues raised by the opinions ican be resolved without affecting existing or proposed construc-t tion ~ permits and operating licenses.

Taking the energy conserva-tion. alternative first, we question.whether consideration of this i

alternative'would:even be-relevant to a plant in: operation.. But

[

?in any event.the required: showing should be easy:to make in due

-course,.if'requiredt without' shutting down plants while hearings t

on-this question wentLforward.

b

-Insofar asi the? fuel cycle issues are concerned, theH opinion Lseems Tto hold that' the-defects,it found in the proceedings

.are procedural rather than substantive.

It indicates that on

remand. the. conclusion.fearlier. reached by the Commission that thel
environmental effacts-of the' fuel cycle are insignificant will1be-r sustained. fThisLis'. expressly stated by Judge Tamm in.his' concur--

.ringsopinion and-implied by Judge'Bazelon in his opinion.(footnote L60)..;Thu_aJsuspension~'of licenses and permits during the pendency

'of proceedings on0 remand:isLnot' warranted., In any event there is n

('

180080%0 [ [

h m

~

/

. The Honorable Marcus A'.~Rowden August 9, 1976-Page.2 abundant evidence that on the basis of known technological capa-bilities the NRC, fin whatever proceedings on this subject are initiated by-it,' can select a plan for the long-term disposal of-

- high-level radioactive: waste.

It-is vital that the nation's developing nuclear power program be allowed to' proceed while plans for long-term -waste disposal are being bmplemented.

On another point, it appears that the consumers opinion would permit any party to impose additional burdens upon the

- Commission simply by mentioning'an issue.

This not only could result in unnecessarily prolonged NRC hearings but also appears to be at odds with administrative procedural requirements as interpreted by the U. S. Supreme court.

Consequently, I believe an attempt should be made to correct this decision on appeal.

As ' to the Vermont Yankee decision, assuming it can be handled separately,: balancing the adverse effecte of further delays versus the burdens.of compliance, I would urge the Com-mission' to proceed with a generic proceeding on the fuel cycle issues regardless of whether or not the decision is maae'to-appeal'.

Sincerely, i

CC:- Commissionar Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Richard T.. Kennedy Commissioner Edward'A.~ Mason

.Mr. Benard C. RuscheL H

L 4

O

,