ML20112J528
| ML20112J528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1985 |
| From: | Stamiris B STAMIRIS, B. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-382 LBP-85-02, LBP-85-2, OL, OM, NUDOCS 8504050199 | |
| Download: ML20112J528 (4) | |
Text
-
l $
^'?
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. g.g
~
m:
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANO LICENSING RPPERL BORR0
'85,;,:4 -3 P1 a /
April 1,1985 ' $.c 'f':
A?cd$:
(,c
. r, 6CL Judges Rotenthal and Moore Docket Nos. 50-329 OH-OL in the Matter of 50-330 OM-OL Consumers Power Compang Midland Plant,linits 1 & 2 STRMIRIS MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO ASLRB 3/13/85 ORDER in response to the Appeal Board Order sugg sting that the appropiate course of action might be to 1) pacote the ASLB LBP-85-2 decision, and 2) have the operating license' application dismissed, Intervenor Stamiris trelieves that the ASLB decision should not be paceted, but that the operating license application should be dismissed.
Interpenor Stamiris believes that the RSLB decision in the OM-OL Hearing should stand because it serves the interests of all parties involved in the proceeding as weH as the public effected by the issues it addresses. The ASLB order represents a decision on all those issues which could be decided at the time of the order and, just as importantig, a recitation of those issues which still require resolution should the project be reuiped.
$$0$
?
A
1 l,
Should the RSLB decision be vacated, all the issues of the December 6,1979 Order of Modification would remain unresolved and
\\
require resolution pior to any resumption of construction.To throw away the work already done, and information already obtained from the OM-OL record seems to serve no useful purpose especially since the resources have already been eHpended. Given the Appeal Board's stated reluctance to conduct a review of L8P-85-2, any action, including their suggestion that the order he vocated, seems inappropriate.
The shutdown of construction at Midland in July 1984 did raise the question of the validity or purpose of any further NRC eHpenditures on this plant. But if the Appeal Board now decides to vacate the Partial Initial Decision already issued on the Order Modifying the Construction Permits,it should also vacate the Midland construction permits on the same grounds of mootness, especially i
since Consumers Power Company has repeatedig stated that if the Midland Plant were ever reulued,it would not be done by Consumers.(attachment 1) Should the Appeal Board consider vacating the construction permits of the Midland plant, I would support that action.
The second issue raised by the Appeal Board's 3/13/85 Order is the dismissal of the operating license application for the Midland plant. Interpenor Stamiris belieues that the operating license should be remanded and dismissed because Consumers Power Company is failing to pursue the operating license, and according to their public statements, will not pursue it in the future.(attachment 1)
I
~
e-Consumers efforts to maintain the economic ulebility of the Midland project by keeping their construction permits and their operating license opplications elipe in the hopes of finding a prospective huger for the plant should not be supported in eng manner by the NRC or its public resources.."Under the Atomic Energy act, Commission responsibility is to protect the public health and safety, not the pocketbooks of owners or customers of electric utilities involved." (p.476 ?NRC No. 4,, ALAB 458,2/14/78) And certainly eng new owner / builder of the Midland plant would have to be eueluoted by the NRC independently from Consumers Power Compong and their previous licensing status.
Furthermore, changes which have taken place since issuance of Midland's FES and SERs, such es the concellation of Unit 1 following Dow's withdrawal and the physical effects of delag on the plant, would require a new operating license review even if Consumers Power Compong were to resume plant construction.
Respecifully Submitted, Barbara 6. Stemiris, intervenor cc:R$tthges
- 10. Paton Esq., NRC M. Miller Esq., CPC L. Bernabel Esq., GRP Secretary, NRC M. $1nclair, Interpenor i
- 10. Marshall. Interpenor E. Schneidewind, MPSC,
F. Kelley, Atty. General
. a
O tLLULUt/IM LA- 0
(
L t
~
[
0004m g 3A-AB-69 f
Question:
l 1
In Mr.. Spring's testimony, Page 7, he states that it was assumed that a decision will be made in 1987 to abandon the Midland Plant.
Whv is Consumers Power waiting until 1987 to finalize the abandonnent deei-sion? Please provide any studies that support that decision.
I Answer:
Consumers Power Company is not waiting until 1987 to finally determine what it will be doing with the Midland plant now that construction has ceased. The Company is not planning to resume Midland construction or to spend any money for that purpose in 1985, 1986 or anytime in the future. The Company will not unilaterally resume Midland construction in 1985, 1986 or thereafter.
Only if app-opriate governmental agencies and officials propose resumption of construction by Consumers Power Company as being in the public interest, and the financial consnunity or someone else is willing to commit the funds necessary to enable completion, will the Company consider resuming construction. In order to maximize recovery, the Company intends to carry out two years of surveillance and maintenance activity on the plant and has taken steps to have its NRC construction permits continued. It has also solicited bids on the S300 million of nuclear fuel which would have been used at Midland in an effort to dispose of the fuel.
The surveillance and maintenance activity will cost approximately S10 million per year plus property taxes. By keeping the plant properly maintained and retaining the construction permits the Company has a more marketable product because it will be able to keep a documented, NRC-approved quality assurance program in place during that period. The Company's plan is to allow two years to see whether some outsider who is interested materializes.
In the meantime, the Company wiil sell any component or system in the plant that does not prevent possible use of the plant as a whole. If there is no one interested in finishing the entire plant, the Company will no later than 1987 do whatever is necessary to claim an abandonment loss for federal income tax purposes.
The income tax implications of this decision have been explained by Mr. Schwass and Mr. Spring.
See the response to 3A-AG-107 and 3A-AG-188.
John D. Selby, being first duly sworn, states that the above response is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, infor=ation or belief.
j s
,n 4
7 Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence th s 1st day of November, 1984.
3d Q7td L
GL, d
Debra Lynn Miller Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires:
-.