ML20010F466
| ML20010F466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1981 |
| From: | Tompkins B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-652, NUDOCS 8109100248 | |
| Download: ML20010F466 (3) | |
Text
.
fb ll CCCY.CTCD
)
ummo St SEP 3 1981
- Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,1;,; E)c3 tettdarf t
\\%
.c.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, gmice wa e
ATOMIC SAFETY AND Ll;.:ENSING APPEAL PANEL 0
N Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman SERVEDSEP 319g;
)
In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500
)
50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 2 and 3)
)
hi~?
4
' b ',A\\\\
~
d MEMORANDUM n-JLi U u}-
f SEP 0 91981* e September 3, 198 u.s. g g "
(ALAB-652) f On August 28, 1981, the Licen'sirig Boar)1 eh d an un-published order in which it granted the applicants' request (1) to withdraw their application for construction permits for Units 2 and 3 of the Davis-Besse nuclear facility; and (2) to terminate this licen.ing proceeding.
See ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667 (1980). -Accordingly, two partial initial decisions previously rendered by that Board (which had paved the way for the issuance of limited work authorizations -(LWAs) for Units 2 and 3 under 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (1) (3)) were vacated. 2_/
1/
LBP-75-75,2 NRC 993 (1975); LBP-78-29, 8 NRC 284 (1978).
_2_/
Those partial initial decisions were struck from the Appeal Panel's docket in ALAB-622, supra, 12 NRC at 669.
The Li-censing Board's August 28 order authorized the Director'of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to revoke the out-standing LWAs which had 1een issued in the wake of the decisions.
$0h 8109100248 810903 8
PDR ADOCK 05000500 0
~
s In taking this action, the Licensing Board imposed a number of conditions which required the applicant to take certain affirmative measures designed (1) to restore the site as nearly as possible to its natural (i.e., pre-LWA) state; and (2) to enhance its qualities as a wildlife habitat.
See 10 CFR 2.107 (a).
It appeara that none of those conditions is controversial; to the contrary, they have the full approval of both the applicants and the NRC staff (the only present parties to the proceeding).
" Appeal board review will be routinely undertaken of any final disposition of a' licensing proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon substant'ive determinations of signifi-cant safety or environmental issues".
Washington Public Power System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-571, 10 NRC 687, 692 (1979) (emphasis in original).
There thus might be occasions on which an appeal board would have to be convened to consider
the matter of the imposition of conditions under 10 CFR 2.107 (a) in connection with the withdrawal of a construction permit appli-cation and the resultant termination of the adjudicatory proceed-ing on that application.
This, however, is not such an occasion.
Apart from the fact that they are acceptable to all concerned, the conditions at bar are unaxceptional in nature and, on their face, seem entirely appropriate to the accomplishment of their laudable purpose.
That being so, it would be an uneconomic use e-
.y-,
w w
y
--- -~
w y,
m-
3-of Appeal Panel resources to undertake a further formal examination of them.
FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIPu%N 1,, n)
- - A Bafbara A. Tompkins Secretary to the Appeal Panel O
.s--
D
ao o
e g
q H
w +
.,,.,