ML20212B031
| ML20212B031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1986 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Rutberg J, Williams F CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-192 ALAB-842, OL, OM, NUDOCS 8608060139 | |
| Download: ML20212B031 (4) | |
Text
00LKETED USNRc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION N AU3 -1 P2:34 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD khntrfr[gf3pg'ygf['
E A
Administrative Judges:
cRANCH Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman August 1, 1986 Thomas S. Moore (ALAB-842) sGWED AUG 19N
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CP, OM&OL
)
50-330 CP, OM&OL (Midland Plant, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
Frederick C. Williams, Washington, D.C.,
for the applicant Consumers Power Company.
Joseph Rutberg for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Consumers Power Company (Consumers) recently advised us that its Board of Directors has recognized that there is "no reasonable possibility that the Midland Project could be completed as a nuclear power plant" and, accordingly, has " authorized the abandonment of the nuclear steam supply systems and other unusable components of [that]
Project."
Given this development, Consumers has informed the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that it wishes to withdraw its applications for an extension of the Midland Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction (July 11, 1986) at 1.
We are told that Consumers contemplates converting Unit 1 to a combined cycle gas-fired generating station.
Ibid.
8608060139 860001 3
(/JL}
PDR ADOCK 05000329 G
~~
2 construction permits and for operating licenses for the facility.2 It also seeks the termination of all pending NRC adjudicatory proceedings concerned with those permits and licenses.3 For our part, we have before us two' matters involving the Midland facility.
First, in an opinion issued several years ago in connection with the construction permit proceeding, we retained jurisdiction over the issue of the environmental significance of the radon-222 emissions occasioned by the mining and milling of uranium fuel.4 Second, because some time ago Consumers halted construction of the Midland facility and presaged the abandonment 2
Id. at 1-2.
Id. at 2.
4 ALAB-691, 16,NRC 897, 909.(.19 8 2 ).-
As there observed, 1the radon issue..was then being, actively litigated in proceedings involving other nuclear facilities.
Later that year, we decided in those proceedings that the effects on human health of the annual fuel cycle radon releases attributable to the operation of the facilities in question were insufficient to tip the National Environmental Policy Act cost-benefit balance against such operation.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-701, 16 NRC 1517 (1982).
In CLI-83-14, 17 NRC 745 (1983), the Commission announced that it was deferring action on a petition seeking its review of ALAB-701 to await the outcome of a generic assessment of certain uranium mill tailings regulations.
As of this date, the petition remains pending before the Commission, with the consequence that we have continued to retain jurisdiction over the radon issue in the Midland proceeding (among others).
3 determination that it has now made, we have been holding in abeyance our review sua sponte of the Licensing Board's partial initial decision last year on remedial soils issues, which were raised in the consolidated construction permit modification and operating license proceeding.
We agree with the NRC staff that the appropriate course of action in the present circumstances is apparent.
On mootness grounds, we now withdraw our retention of jurisdiction cver the radon issue presented in the construction permit proceeding.6 On the same basis, we vacate the Licensing Board's partial initial decision on remedial soils in the consolidated construction permit modification and operating license proceeding.
This step leaves the Licensing Board free to act upon Consumers' request that it authorize withdrawal of the operating license application and then dismiss the consolidated See LBP-85-2, 21 NRC 24 (1985).
See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear i
Plant, Units 1A and 2A), ALAB-783, 20 NRC 843 (1984); Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667 (1980).
See United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-755, 18 NRC 1337 (1983); Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-628, 13 NRC 24 (1981).
4 proceeding.8 Before doing so, however, the Board is to determine whether any conditions should be imposed upon such an authorization and dis.nissal. 9 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0,
_"=
C. J n Shoemaker Secre(}ary to the t
Appeal Board i
8 Because portions of that proceeding are still before the Licensing Board, Consumars quite properly has called upon that Board to terminate it.
9 See Clinch River, supra note 7; Davis-Besse, rupra note 6.
Needless to say, if dissatisfied with it, any party may appeal the Licensing Board's determination on the question of the need for conditions.