ML20203F879
| ML20203F879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1986 |
| From: | Rutberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-143 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8607310197 | |
| Download: ML20203F879 (6) | |
Text
. _ _
~,
Nf0 July 8,.1986 N 30 P1 :3g h((Tf[jpgjN(TAny SU UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3p ict.-
BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF APPEAL BOARD JURISDICTION I.
INTRODUCTION In a motion dated July 11, 1986, Consumers Power Company (Con-sumers) requested the Appeal Board to relinquish any jurisdiction that it has over the Midland proceeding. The motion is premised on the determi-nation by the Board of Directors of Consumers Power Company to with-draw its request for an extension of its construction permit and its application for an operating license because there was no reasonable pos-sibility that the Midland Project could be completed as a nuclear power plant.
Furthermore, the Board of Directors authorized the abandonment of the nuclear steam supply systems and other unusable components of the Midland Project.
Motion at 1.
For the reasons set forth below, the i
Staff supports the motion.
8607310197 860728 PDR ADOCK 05000329 0 --- - - -, - - -, - - - - - -. ~ ~ -. - - _ _ _ _,. - - ~
..._w--- II. BACKGROUND Pending before the Appeal Board are two matters involving the Mid-land Power Plant. One matter involves the issue of the health effects of radon emissions. The jurisdiction over this issue was retained by the Appeal Board as it dealt with th e Midland facility's construction permit. 1 The other matter involves the sua sponte review of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision dealing with the remedial soils issues in the consolidated operating license and construction permit modi-2_/ fication proceeding. In connection with the latter proceeding, the Appeal Board previously requested the parties to address the impact of the decision by Consumers Power Company to hold in abeyance further construction of the Midland Power Plant on the need for a sua sponte consideration of this decision and its impact on the continued vitality of the Consumers' Operating License application. b The responses of the parties are currently pending before the Appeal Board. III. DISCUSSION The Appeal Board, in its Order of March 13, 1986, expressed doubt as to the need to conduct a sua sponte review of LDP-85-2 because of Consumers' indication at that time that the Midland Project had been in-1/ Consumers Power Company (Midland
- Plant, Units 1 and 2),
~ ALAB-691,16 NRC 897, 909 (1982). 2) Consumers Power Company (Midland
- Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-85-2, 21 NRC 24 (1985). 3_/ Consumers Power Company (Midland
- Plant, Units 1 and 2),
March 13,1985 (unpublished Order).
definitely, if not permanently, shut down. Order at 1. Furthermore, the Appeal Board indicated that its initial impression in considering the future course of this proceeding was that the appropriate course to follow was to vacate LDP-85-2 and to remand the operating license portion of the proceeding to the Licensing Board with instructions to dismiss the operat-ing license application. Order at 3. In view of the circumstances presented by Consumers, it is now ap-propriate and consistent with existing precedent to vacate LBP-85-2 and to remand the matter to the Licensing Board to consider Consumers' re-quest to terminate the proceeding and to determine whether conditions should be imposed upon the withdrawal of the application. 10 C.F.R. S 2.107; Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power S tation, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667 (1980); see also, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (William II. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-33, 20 NRC 765 (1984). Also, the matter pending before the Ap-peal Board involving the generic issue of the environmental consequences of radon releases. attributable to the mining and milling of uranium fuel should be removed from the list of proceedings raising that issue. Davis-Besse, supra. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff supports the Motion filed by Consumers to terminate all proceedings now before the Appeal Board involving the Midland Power Plant. In addition, the Staff believes that the matter should be remanded to the Licensing Board for further action
. 6 on Consumers' request to withdraw its application and terminate the OL-OM proceeding. Respectf ly subnitted, ? t Js I tberg De tyAssistantGenkralCounsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of July, 1986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL ) 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF APPEAL BOARD JU-RISDICTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 28th day of July,1986: Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Frank J. Kelley Administrative Judge Attorney General of the State Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Steward H. Freeman Washington, D.C. 20555* Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dr. Jerry Harbour 525 W. Ottawa St., 720 Law Bldg. Administrative Judge Lansing, Michigan 48913 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Mary Sinclair Washington, D.C. 20555* 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael I. Miller, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D.C. 20555* Three First National Plaza 52nd Floor James E. Brunner, Esq. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
Ms. Barbara Stamiris Atomic Safety and Licensing 5795 N. River Board Panel Freeland, Michigan 48623 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* James R. Kates Atomic Safety and Licensing 203 S. Washington Avenue Appeal Board Panel (8) Saginaw, Michigan 48605 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Howard A. Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation Docketing and Service Section 7101 Wisconsin Ave. Office of the Secretary Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555* Wayne Hearn Paul C. Rau Bay City Times Midland Daily News 311 Fifth Street 124 Mcdonald Street Bay City, Michigan 48706 Midland, Michigan 48640 Frederick C. Williams Bruce Berson Isham, Lincoln & Beale Regional Counsel 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW USNRC, Region III Suite 1100 799 Roosevelt Road Washington, D.C. 20036 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137* Myron M. Cherry, P.C. Lynne Bernabel Peter Flynn, P.C. GAP Cherry & Flynn Institute for Policy Studies 4 Three First National Plaza 1901 Que Street, N.W. Suite 3700 Washington, D.C. 20009 Chicago, IL 60602 Ronald C. Callen T. J. Creswell Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Division 6545 Mercantile Way Legal Department P. O. Box 30221 Dow Chemical Company Lansing, Michigan 48909 Midland, Michigan 48640 Samuel A. Haubold, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 k Jos' ( Rutberg ( tf Assistant Genbral Counsel 1 i r - _____ _}}