ML20202G012
| ML20202G012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Williams F CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202G018 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#386-966 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8607150281 | |
| Download: ML20202G012 (7) | |
Text
-
h(
\\
$${fo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
5bi'?
c :n~
l'I ' " ' '
- 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)
)
MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO WITHDRAW OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION AND FOR DISMISSAL OF OPERATING LICENSE AND ORDER OF MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.107(a) and 2.730, Consumers Power Company
(" Consumers" or " Company") hereby requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") grant it authorization to withdraw its operating license application and dismiss the operating license proceeding.
Consumers further requests the Licensing Board to terminate the Order of Modification proceeding as soon as Consumers' withdrawal of its request for extension of the construction permits is effective.
Introduction By letter of September 10, 1984, Consumers informed the Licensing Board that it had shut down design, construction, and testing activities relating to the Midland Plant and discontinued all licensing activities for Midland except those necessary to preserve the status quo of the plant.
The Company also stated that, although it was unlikely 860715028 Og8[hh29 PDR ADO PDR
~
-)
} })
(
,) '
e G
that the Midland project would be revived in the near future, it did wish to preserve its options with respect to Midland, including completion, and that it did not then plan to withdraw its operating license application or surrender the Midland construction permits.
There is no longer any possibility of completion of Midland as a nuclear facility.
On April 21, 1986, Consumers advised the Licensing Board that a study it conducted of options for the future utilization of the facility recommended conversion to a combined-cycle gas fired plant.
Although the financial conditions referred to in the April 21 letter have not yet been satisfied, the Company has nevertheless decided to abandon plans to complete the units as nuclear units.
Accordingly, Consumers now wishes to withdraw its operating license application and have the operating license proceeding and the consolidated order of modification proceeding dismissed.
Operating License Application And Proceeding As the attached Affidavit of T.A. McNish, Secretary of Consumers Power Company, indicates, the Board of Directors of the Company voted in a special meeting of April 8, 1986 to authorize the officers of the Company to convert Unit 1 of the Midland Plant to a combined cycle gas-fired unit.
The Board further voted in a special meeting on June 18, 1986 to authorize the officers of the Company to abandon the Midland Plant as a nuclear power project.
Further, on July 1,
- 1986, Consumers, in a letter of James W. Cook to Harold Denton, requested that its application for an operating license be considered withdrawn.
Accordingly, Consumers seeks withdrawal of the operating license application and termination of the licensing proceeding.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.107(a), which governs withdrawal of applications, states:
The Commission may permit an applicant to withdraw an application prior to the issuance of a notice of hearing on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, or may, on receiving a request for withdrawal of an application, deny the application or dismiss it with prejudice. Withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a noticit of hearing shall be on such terms as the presiding officer may prescribe.
Since a hearing is in process on Consumers' operating license application, the Licensing Board has jurisdiction to authorize withdrawal "on such terms as the presiding officer may prescribe."
While there can be no doubt that the Licensing Board has substantial discretion as to the conditions which may be imposed on voluntary withdrawal, "[t]he terms prescribed at the time of withdrawal must bear a rational relationship to the conduct and legal harm at which they are aimed."
Philadelphia Electric Company (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657, 14 N.R.C.
967, 974 (1981).
Technical conditions which would preclude the use of the facility as a " utilization facility" under S 11cc of the i -
Atomic Energy Act are appropriate.
Rendering the control rod system and the nuclear steam supply system inoperable and removal of all nuclear fuel from the site are sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
(William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-33, 20 N.R.C.
765, 767 (1984).
As the attached Affidavit of James W. Cook indicates, when construction of the Midland project halted, the plant was not sufficiently complete that it could be operated as a nuclear facility.
The control rods have remained off site in the custody of Babcock and Wilcox.
In addition, approximately half of the control rods have been sold and Consumers has authorized Babcock and Wilcox to salvage the remainder.
It is evident, therefore, that the control rod system does not need to be further disabled.
In addition, the steam generator pressure boundary has been breached to accommodate the external feedwater header modification.
Some of the steam generators have holes in the shells and all lack auxiliary feedwater piping.
In addition, as the July 1 letter indicates, thousands of feet of pipe, wire and cable necessary to complete the plant have not been installed.
Finally, unlike Zimmer, there was never any nuclear fuel at the Midland site.
As a result, the plant is 1 1 m_-
inoperable as a reactor, and no further steps are necessary to disable it as a nuclear utilization facility.1/
The fact that the facility is to be converted to a fossil generating station is important in determining what environmental steps, if any, are necessary.
Zimmer, supra; Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-10, 17 N.R.C.
410 (1983).
As the July 1, 1986 letter and Mr. Cook's affidavit point out, actions were taken to stabilize the site after the 1984 construction halt.
In addition, the proposed gas-fired facility will utilize the existing cooling pond and associated facilities.
The Company has developed and implemented a cooling pond maintenance program which the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has approved and inspected and maintains its NPDES permit.
(See attached Affidavit of James W. Cook.)
No further site environmental alterations are necessary.
Order of Modification (Construction Fermit) Proceeding The Company has pending an application pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.55(b) to extend the expiration date of the AI Consumers also intends to sell as much of the nuclear qualified equipment at the site as it can.
For that reason, it will maintain a Quality Assurance program for such equipment sufficient to assure its marketability.
The continued existence of that program is solely for the stated purpose and does not in any way imply any lingering intent on the Company's part to reactivate the project as a nuclear facility. -. _ _ - -
Midland construction permits.
In its July 1, 1986 letter to Harold Denton, the Company requested that the application for extension of the construction permit expiration dates be considered withdrawn.
Since no notice of hearing has been issued on the application for extension, withdrawal is a matter of Staff discretion.
10 C.F.R. S 2.107(a).
When an application for extension of a construction permit is withdrawn (and any extension proceedings terminated), the permit is deemed to have expired:
"the effect of termination is to rescind the construction permit with finality."
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating i
Station, Nuclear-1), LBP-82-29, 15 NRC 762, 767 (1982),
modified, LBP-82-37, 15 NRC 1139 (1982).
Thus at least when the Staff grants the Company's request to withdraw the application for extension, the construction permits lapse irrevocably.
See Texas Utilities Electric Company (Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-4, 23 N.R.C.
- 113, 119-20 (1986).
The OM proceeding was limited in scope to a potential modification of the construction permit.
Once the construction permit is no longer in existence, the OM proceeding is moot.
Consumers therefore respectfully requests that the Licensing Board, upon notification from the Staff that Consumers' request for withdrawal of its request for extension of the construction permits has been granted, dismiss the OM portion of this proceeding as moot..-
l i
Conclusion For all of the reasons set forth herein, Consumers respectfully requests the Licensing Board to authorize withdrawal of the operating license, dismirs the operating license proceeding without prejudice, and, upon notification that the Midland construction permits have expired, dismiss the order of modification proceeding as moot.
Consumers further requests that the Board vacate its partial initial decision in Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-2, 21 N.R.C.
24 (1985).
Finally, Consumers l
requests that the Licensing Board relieve it of all reporting requirements and other conditions.
Respectfully submitted, g.
y Frederick C. Williams Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company I
Dated:
July 11, 1986 a.. - _. _.
-