ML20027B194
| ML20027B194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1982 |
| From: | Steptoe P ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 73-1776, 73-1876, 74-1586, ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8209160519 | |
| Download: ML20027B194 (5) | |
Text
ymuTED CORRESPONDEMfD ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE DOCMETED COUNSELORS AT law USNRC THREE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
.g CHICAGO. ILUNOtS 60802
- .J't EDWARD S ISHAM. 1872 1902 WASHINGTON OFFICE 2
ROBERT T LINCOLN, 1872 1889 1120 CONNECTICUT Avf NUE. N W WtLUAM G. 8EALE. 1885-1923 CE S CR-
- suT sg, g
September 13, 1982 BRANCli UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330-OM
)
50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1
)
50-330-OL and 2)
)
3 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
i Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dear Chief Judge Bechhoefer:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of an order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 1, 1982 which stays the mandate in NRDC v. NRC (Vermont Yankee III) for a period of 30 days.
We expect that petitions for certiorari will be filed in the Supreme Court during that period, which will result in a further stay of the mandate until the Supreme Court's disposition of the case.
Also enclosed are Memorandum Orders issued by the D.C. Circuit on August 16, 1982 in the Aeschliman docket.
I We will not comment on this Memorandum Order except to state that it requires no change to this Licensing Board's l
treatment of Intervenor Sinclair's contention 1 in the Prehehring Conference Order (Ruling Upon New Contentions and Memorializing Other Determinations Reached at Prehearing Conference), LBP-82-63, August 14, 1982, at pp. 11-12.
j parit 8'ck'as3TB%
hSO3 o
We have not yet received petitioners' response to the Memorandum Order in Aeschliman.
i Respectfully submitted, t
Philip P.
Steptoe M
f PPS/kb Encs.
l CC:
Service List J
t t
i s
i I
e 1
.-.v-.
.~
m mv-.._.,-,_,.m--..
---. - - -, - -,-v v.
d hitch @ fates Ecuri of Appeals FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUM8! A CIRCULT N o. 74-is8s September Term,19 si Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.
and Consolidated NationalIntervenors, Petitioners United States ' Court of Appeals y*
for the Distri;; cf Cel:anha Circuit United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission gD cEP 1 G82 and United States of America, Responue.its GEORGE A. FISHER ct.cnn Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., et al.,
Intervenors NND CONSOLIDATED CASES BEFORE: Bazelon, Senior Circuit Judge; George C. Edwards, Jr.*, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; and Wilkey, Cir-cuit Judge ORDER Upon consideration of intervenors' (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al.
and Commonwealth Edison Company, et al.) and respondents'(NRC and USA) motions for stay of mandate, of petitioner's (NRDC) response in opposition thereto, and of respondents' and intervenors' replies to the foregoing, it is ORDERED, by the Court, that the aforesaid motions for stay of mandate are granted and the Clerk is directed not to issue the mandate herein for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Per Curiam t
FOR THE COURT:
} l.
GEORGE A. FISilER Clerk
- Sitting by designation pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. { 291(a).
e
~'
- ' sn =*
~
- *- * - *
- a r~.
+.
1
2
. cy *
'a hitch @ fates Edurf of Appeala FoR THE DISTRICT oF. Col.UMBI A CIRCUlT September Term,19 31 No.73-1776 Nelson Aeschliman, et al.,-
Petitioners Urlited Stshs C~.nt ci Appeals for the Estri:t cf Cdxta t';::.Jt v.
United States of America Nuclear Regulatory U
Ad616 IS82 I
Commmisciem ed United States of America, Responden,ts GEORGE A. FISHER m aic Consumers Power Co. a Michigan Corp.
Intervenor j,y AND CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 73-1867 JL
, y,,)
198,4 i om
,. 4) '
n v!!.l
- b..._._" k.'- ; i f
'I.Y_.
BEFORE: Wilkey, Wald*, and Ginsburg, Circuit Judges
. Lcwcnsu ia, h...: n, h!.:
(
l u Ac.:d MEMORANDUM ORDER _
(D.C. Cir. 27 Apr.1982), this court held that the In NRDC v. NRC, F.2d figures in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's original, interim, and final Table S-3 rule were the result of inadequate consideration of the potential environmentalimpacts of l
l nuclear waste disposal and reprocessing, and could not be relied upon to provide the necessary environmentalinput into operating license proceedings for nuclear facilities.
The Supreme Court anticipated the possibility of such a result when it remanded the matter to this court in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. v. NRDC,435 U.S. 519 (1978). In a footnote to the Court's opinion it suggested that
~
Should {the court on remandi hold the rule invalid,it appears in all probability that the Commission will proceed to promulgate a rule resulting from rulemaking proceedings currently in pro-In alllikelihood the Commission would then be required,-
gress....
under compulsion of the court's order, to examine [the licenses in issue] under that new rule.
435 U.S. at 535-36 n.10.
Although the "new rule" to which the Court referred was the final S-3 rule, which was vacated in NRDC v. NRC. suora, we note that the NRC is currently conducting a generic proceeding to reassess the " uncertainties" in the availability of safe nuclear waste dispo methods, with which this court was most concerned in NRDC v. NRC. The Commission has been urged by this court to arrive at its " waste confidence" determination by 30 June 80-1862 (D.C. Cir. 20 July 1982). The results of this 1983. Potomac Alliance v. NRC. No.
proceeding will, in all probability, be utilized by the Commission to adjust its S-3 rule to l
conform to the requirements announced in NRDC_ v. NRC.
1 continued 1
.c e
hitch States Enurt o.f Appeals FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBI A CIRCUIT No.73_1778&73_i887 September Term,19 81 Page 2 By our understanding, construction of the facility in issue in this cause is substantially completed. Because the alleged inadequacies in the environmental considerations made in connection with the Commission's grant of the construction permit in this case may be cured in the operating license proceedings new in progress, little would be gained by requiring the NRC to reevaluate its grant of the construction license. It is therefore ORDERED that on or before September 8,1982 petitioners hereto shall file a state'aent to show cause why this court should not issue an order dismissing the petition for review of the NRC order granting the construction permit in issue and permitting the Commission to comply with the mandate of NRDC v. NRC as part of the operating license proceeding now in progress for the subject facility.
Per Curiam I
\\.
~
- Circuit Judge Wald did not participate in this order.
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _