ML18026A057: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:October"',1976UNITED' | {{#Wiki_filter:October"',1976UNITED'STATES OFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY CO&MISSION BeforeTh''ommi:ss'ion INTHEMATTEROF))PENNSYLVANIA POWER6LIGHT)COMPANY)(Susquehanna SteamElectric)Station,Units162))DocketNos.30-38PENNSYLVANIA POWER'S(LIGHTCOMPANY'S RESPONSETOMOTIONOFVERMONTYANKEENUCLEARPOWERCORPORATION DATED'EPTEMBER.'27,''1976 InadocumentdatedOctober13,1976,theSecretary oftheCommission invitedthepartiesinvolvedinallpendingshowcauseproceedings onfuelcycleissuestorespondtoamotionfiledonSeptember 27,1976,bytheVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation inDocketNo.50-271.ThismotionsoughttherecallofthoseportionsoftheGeneralStatement ofPolicy-Environmental EffectsoftheUraniumFuelCycle,41Fed.Reg.34707(August16,1976)whichdirected'Atomic SafetyandLicensing Boards,AtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoards,andtheNRCStaff(inshowcauseproceedings) toconsiderthesuspension ormodification ofanynuclearpowerplantlicenseonfuelcyclegrounds.TheOctober13,*1976,documentalsostatedthattheCommission wasconsidering thesuspension ofallpendingshowcauseproceedings onfuelcycleissuesinlightoftheOctober8, 1976,orderoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfor.theD.'.Circuitstayingtheissuanceofthemandate'-in"'Natura'1'Resources DefenseCouncil., | ||
Theclearimportofthis' | Xnc.v.NRCandinlightofthepublication bytheCommission ofasupplement toitsEnvironmental SurveyoftheNuclearFuelCycleandanoticeofproposedrulemaking lookingtowardstheadoptionofaninterimfuelcyclerule.,Pennsylvania Power6LightCompany,theholderofconstruc-tionpermitsfortheSusquehanna SteamElectricStation,Units1and2,submitsthefollowing commentsontheVermontYankeemotion.ByletterdatedSeptember 21,1976,totheDirectorofNuclearReactorRegulation, theCompanyresponded tothe'Petition forintervention". | ||
filedbytheEnvironmental Coali-tiononNuclearPowerwhichrequested thesuspension oftheconstruction permitsfortheSusquehanna facility. | |||
527,536(1910). | AstheCommission recognized'n itsAugust13,1976,GeneralStatement ofPolicy,theCourtofAppealsinNRDC,notwithstanding thedefectswhichitfoundinthefuelcyclerule,didnotsuspendtheoperating licenseoftheVermontYankeefacilityinvolvedinthatcase.Nordidthecourtinthecompanion caseofAeschliman v.NRCsuspendtheMidlandPlantconstruction permitsnotwithstanding thesameperceived defect.AstheCommission noted,"thecourtrefusedanex-plicitrequesttosetasidetheselicenses." | ||
41Fed.Reg.34707.TheNRCdid,however,viewtheCourt'srulingascallingfortheCommission toresolvethequestionofsuspending ormodifying existinglicensespendingtheissuanceof.newfuelcycleregu-lationsonacase-by-case basis'where "suchasuspension ormodification wasrequested..: | |||
Thiscase-by-case determination wastobe,basedon'theequitable factorsoutlinedintheGeneralStatement ofPolicy.41Fed.Reg.at34709.Absentsucharequest,theCommission announced thatitwould'ua~sontedetermine whethertoinitiateshowcauseproceedings foralloutstanding licenses'ased uponinformation intherevisedenvironmental survey.Id.TheOctober8,1976,orderoftheNRDCCourt,webelieve,indicates thattheCommission erredinitsviewthattheCourtexpectedtheNRCtoconsidersuspending existingoperating Ilicensesandconstruction permits.Thatorderstayedtheissu-anceofthemandateofthe'RDCdecision. | |||
Theoperative languageoftheorderisasfollows:[I]tis...FURTHERORDERED,bytheCourt,thattheforegoing motionsforstayofmandatearegranted,andtheClerkisdirectednottoissuethemandateherein'priortoOctober31,1976,oncondition thattheUnitedStatesNuclearRegulatory Commission shallmakeanylicensesgrantedbetweenJuly21,1976,andsuchtimewhenthemandateisissuedsubjecttotheout-comeoftheproceedings herein.l/Sinceapet@tv.on forcertiorari oftheNRDCdec@saonhasbeenfiledbyVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation anddocketedintheSupremeCourt,themandatecannotnowissuependingfurtherorderoftheSupremeCourt.Rule41,Fed.R.App.P. | |||
Theclearimportofthis'language is-thatnewlicensescanbeissuednotwithstanding theNRDC'decision solongasthoselicensesare"subjecttotheoutcomeoftheproceedings 2/herein."IftheNRDCdecisionpermitstheCommission toissuenewlicensespendingtheoutcomeofthe.remanded fuelcyclerulemaking proceeding, itlogically followsthattheCommission isneitherobligated noroughttoconsidersuspen-sionofthe~existinlicensespendingthecompletion oftheremandedrulemaking proceedings. | |||
Itwouldcertainly defyreasonfortheCourtofAppealstopermitNRCtoissuenewlicensesafterNRDC(subjecttocondition) andatthesametimetointendtheNRDCdecisiontobethepossiblecauseforthesus-pensionoflicenses-issuedbefore"NRDC.Thus,theappropriate courseofactionforNRCatthistimewouldbetodeletefromtheGeneralStatement ofPolicythoseprovisions relatingtosuspension ofexistinglicensesonfuelcyclegroundsandtosuspendallpendingshowcause/suspension proceedings based3/onfuelcycleissues.2Thxs.provision ands.cates | |||
'thattheCommission's GeneralState-mentofPolicywentbeyondthedictatesoftheNRDCdecisionwhenitbarredtheissuanceofnewfull-power operating | |||
: licenses, construction permitsandlimitedworkauthorizations. | |||
3/TheOctober8,1976,orderevenraisesthequestionwhethertheCourtintended.the'RDCdecisiontoapplytoexistinglicensesatall.Byonlyrequiring thatlicensesissuedafterNRDCbesubjecttotheoutcomeoftheremandedrulemaking, itatleastimpliesthatlicensesissuedbefore'RDC | |||
'arenottobesubjecttothatoutcome.Ifthatisthecase,thenreconsideration ofexistinglicensesaftertherulemaking hasbeencompleted wouldbeinappropriate andunnecessary. | |||
Thestayingofthemandateisobviously ample'groundsformodification bytheCommission'of itssuspension instruc-tionssetforthintheGeneralPolicyStatement. | |||
TheCommission itselfrecognized thatamotiontorecallitsdecisiontocon-veneproceedings toconsidersuspension ofexistinglicenseswouldbeappropriate ifthemandatewerestayed.SeeCommission Memorandum andOrder,'ermont'ahke'e Nu'c'1'ear'o'w'er | |||
'Cor.(VermontYankeeNuclearPowerStation)and:'Con'sumers'ower Coman(Mid-landPlant,Units1and2),September 14,1976,slipop.at7.Intestimony beforetheJointCommittee onAtomicEnergyonAugust27,1976,theChairmanoftheCommission statedthat,depending ontheresultsoftherevisedenvironmental survey,theNRCmight'eek a.stayofthemandatewhichifgrantedcould4/serveasthe'asisforadditional licensing action.Thus,theCommission hasrecognized thatastayofthemandatewouldbecause.tochangeitsHRDCimplementation policies. | |||
of'themandateservestomaintainthestatusquofor'ionofthestay.AlonuinGasTransmission Co.v.Thestayingthedura-T~ownshiofSomerset, 112F.Supp.86,90(D.N.J.1953).AstheSupremeCourtheldmorethansixtyyearsagotheappealmustberegardedaspendingandundisposed ofuntilaman-dateissues.Merrimack RiverSavinsBankv.Ci't''ofCl'a'Cen'ter, 219U.S.4,Statement of.Marcus.A.Rowen,Chairman, U.S.NuclearRegu-latoryCommission, beforethe'ointCommittee onAtomicEnergy,August=27,1976,p.9. | |||
527,536(1910).Ifanappealmustbeconsidered as"pendingandundisposed of",itwouldobviously beinappropriate foranagencytotake-thedrasticstepof"suspending anexistinglicensebasedonsuchincomplete'judicia'1 action.AbsenttheissuanceoftheCourtsmandate,thereisno'official judicialaction.AsstatedbytheEighthCircuit,"thiscourt,asdoesanyappellate court,actsformallyandofficially onlythroughitsmandate". | |||
~Bailev.Hen'sl'ee, 309F.2d840,844(8thCir.1962).Morerecently,'he NinthCircuitdistinguished betweentheimmediate effectiveness ofamemorandum issuedinresponsetoamotionandtheabilitytostaya"judgment". | |||
throughastayofmandate.YorkInternational'ni'ldin, Inc.v.crane522F.2d1061,1066(9thCir.1975).TheCommission wouldnotbewarranted inusingajudicialpronouncement notineffectasthebasisforthesuspension ofexistinglicenses. | |||
FurthersupportforamendingtheGeneralStatement ofPolicyandsuspending pendingshowcauseproceedings canbefoundintherulemaking proceeding recentlycommenced bytheICommission. | |||
Asshowninthenoticeofproposedrulemaking, "UraniumFuelCycleImpactsfromSpentFuelReprocessing andRadioactive WasteManagement", | |||
41Fed.Reg.45849(October18,1976),theenvironmental | |||
'impactsofreprocessing andwastemanagement asdescribed intherevisedinterimtablesetforthinthenoticearenotsignificantly different fromthoseinTableS-3,exceptfortheburialofsolidwastes(withouttheir releasetotheenvironment) rathe'rthantheirstorageinFretrievable form.Asnoted'intheCommission's pressreleaseaccompanying thenoticeofproposedrulemaking, theenviron-mentalimpactsoffuelreprocessing andwastemanagement astheyrelatetoindividual nuclearplantscontinuetobesmall,evenwhenimpactswhichwerenotcompletely accounted forinthepastareconsidered. | |||
TheCommission hasalsoindicated thattheinterimfuelcyclerulecould'be'inplacewithinthree5/months.GiventhesefactorsandtheCommission's judgmentthatitspresentanalysisofreprocessing andwastemanagement impactisunlikelytobedramatically inerror,asuspension ofexistinglicensespendingpromulgation ofaninterimfuelcyclerulewould'notbesensibleadministrative policy.Forthereasonssetforthabove,Pennsylvania Power&LightCompanyrespectfully requeststhattheCommission modifyitsGeneralStatement ofPolicybydeletingthoseportionsrelatingtothesuspension ofexistinglicensesandsuspending allpendingshowcause/suspension proceedings | |||
'basedonfuelcycleissues.Respectfully submitted, SHAN,PITTNAN,POTTS&TROWBRIDGE Dated:October21,1976ByJay+J.SibergCouns'elforPennsylvania Power&LightCompany5/Seestatement byMarcusA.Rowen,Chairman, NRC,inPressReleaseNo.76<<221,October13,1976. | |||
UNITEDSTATESOFAEKRICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION Before'h''ommi's'sion IntheMatterofPENNSYLVANIA POWER6LIGHTCOMPANY(Susquehanna SteamElectricStation,Units162)DocketNos.50-38750-388CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoing "Pennsylvania Power&LightCompany's ResponseToMotionOfVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation DatedSeptember 27,1976"wereservedasfollows:BYHANDDELIVERY: | |||
DEPOSITED INTHEU.S.MAIL:OfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington,'-D. | |||
C.20555Docketing 6ServiceSectionU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555OfficeoftheExecutive LegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Mr.ChaunceyKepford2576BroadStreetYork,Pennsylvania Ms.JudithH.Johnsrud433OrlandoDriveStateCollege,Pennsylvania JayE.jSz,lbergzXlDated:October21,1976}} |
Revision as of 04:54, 29 June 2018
ML18026A057 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Susquehanna |
Issue date: | 10/21/1976 |
From: | Silberg J E Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
References | |
Download: ML18026A057 (8) | |
Text
October"',1976UNITED'STATES OFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY CO&MISSION BeforeThommi:ss'ion INTHEMATTEROF))PENNSYLVANIA POWER6LIGHT)COMPANY)(Susquehanna SteamElectric)Station,Units162))DocketNos.30-38PENNSYLVANIA POWER'S(LIGHTCOMPANY'S RESPONSETOMOTIONOFVERMONTYANKEENUCLEARPOWERCORPORATION DATED'EPTEMBER.'27,1976 InadocumentdatedOctober13,1976,theSecretary oftheCommission invitedthepartiesinvolvedinallpendingshowcauseproceedings onfuelcycleissuestorespondtoamotionfiledonSeptember 27,1976,bytheVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation inDocketNo.50-271.ThismotionsoughttherecallofthoseportionsoftheGeneralStatement ofPolicy-Environmental EffectsoftheUraniumFuelCycle,41Fed.Reg.34707(August16,1976)whichdirected'Atomic SafetyandLicensing Boards,AtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoards,andtheNRCStaff(inshowcauseproceedings) toconsiderthesuspension ormodification ofanynuclearpowerplantlicenseonfuelcyclegrounds.TheOctober13,*1976,documentalsostatedthattheCommission wasconsidering thesuspension ofallpendingshowcauseproceedings onfuelcycleissuesinlightoftheOctober8, 1976,orderoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfor.theD.'.Circuitstayingtheissuanceofthemandate'-in"'Natura'1'Resources DefenseCouncil.,
Xnc.v.NRCandinlightofthepublication bytheCommission ofasupplement toitsEnvironmental SurveyoftheNuclearFuelCycleandanoticeofproposedrulemaking lookingtowardstheadoptionofaninterimfuelcyclerule.,Pennsylvania Power6LightCompany,theholderofconstruc-tionpermitsfortheSusquehanna SteamElectricStation,Units1and2,submitsthefollowing commentsontheVermontYankeemotion.ByletterdatedSeptember 21,1976,totheDirectorofNuclearReactorRegulation, theCompanyresponded tothe'Petition forintervention".
filedbytheEnvironmental Coali-tiononNuclearPowerwhichrequested thesuspension oftheconstruction permitsfortheSusquehanna facility.
AstheCommission recognized'n itsAugust13,1976,GeneralStatement ofPolicy,theCourtofAppealsinNRDC,notwithstanding thedefectswhichitfoundinthefuelcyclerule,didnotsuspendtheoperating licenseoftheVermontYankeefacilityinvolvedinthatcase.Nordidthecourtinthecompanion caseofAeschliman v.NRCsuspendtheMidlandPlantconstruction permitsnotwithstanding thesameperceived defect.AstheCommission noted,"thecourtrefusedanex-plicitrequesttosetasidetheselicenses."
41Fed.Reg.34707.TheNRCdid,however,viewtheCourt'srulingascallingfortheCommission toresolvethequestionofsuspending ormodifying existinglicensespendingtheissuanceof.newfuelcycleregu-lationsonacase-by-case basis'where "suchasuspension ormodification wasrequested..:
Thiscase-by-case determination wastobe,basedon'theequitable factorsoutlinedintheGeneralStatement ofPolicy.41Fed.Reg.at34709.Absentsucharequest,theCommission announced thatitwould'ua~sontedetermine whethertoinitiateshowcauseproceedings foralloutstanding licenses'ased uponinformation intherevisedenvironmental survey.Id.TheOctober8,1976,orderoftheNRDCCourt,webelieve,indicates thattheCommission erredinitsviewthattheCourtexpectedtheNRCtoconsidersuspending existingoperating Ilicensesandconstruction permits.Thatorderstayedtheissu-anceofthemandateofthe'RDCdecision.
Theoperative languageoftheorderisasfollows:[I]tis...FURTHERORDERED,bytheCourt,thattheforegoing motionsforstayofmandatearegranted,andtheClerkisdirectednottoissuethemandateherein'priortoOctober31,1976,oncondition thattheUnitedStatesNuclearRegulatory Commission shallmakeanylicensesgrantedbetweenJuly21,1976,andsuchtimewhenthemandateisissuedsubjecttotheout-comeoftheproceedings herein.l/Sinceapet@tv.on forcertiorari oftheNRDCdec@saonhasbeenfiledbyVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation anddocketedintheSupremeCourt,themandatecannotnowissuependingfurtherorderoftheSupremeCourt.Rule41,Fed.R.App.P.
Theclearimportofthis'language is-thatnewlicensescanbeissuednotwithstanding theNRDC'decision solongasthoselicensesare"subjecttotheoutcomeoftheproceedings 2/herein."IftheNRDCdecisionpermitstheCommission toissuenewlicensespendingtheoutcomeofthe.remanded fuelcyclerulemaking proceeding, itlogically followsthattheCommission isneitherobligated noroughttoconsidersuspen-sionofthe~existinlicensespendingthecompletion oftheremandedrulemaking proceedings.
Itwouldcertainly defyreasonfortheCourtofAppealstopermitNRCtoissuenewlicensesafterNRDC(subjecttocondition) andatthesametimetointendtheNRDCdecisiontobethepossiblecauseforthesus-pensionoflicenses-issuedbefore"NRDC.Thus,theappropriate courseofactionforNRCatthistimewouldbetodeletefromtheGeneralStatement ofPolicythoseprovisions relatingtosuspension ofexistinglicensesonfuelcyclegroundsandtosuspendallpendingshowcause/suspension proceedings based3/onfuelcycleissues.2Thxs.provision ands.cates
'thattheCommission's GeneralState-mentofPolicywentbeyondthedictatesoftheNRDCdecisionwhenitbarredtheissuanceofnewfull-power operating
- licenses, construction permitsandlimitedworkauthorizations.
3/TheOctober8,1976,orderevenraisesthequestionwhethertheCourtintended.the'RDCdecisiontoapplytoexistinglicensesatall.Byonlyrequiring thatlicensesissuedafterNRDCbesubjecttotheoutcomeoftheremandedrulemaking, itatleastimpliesthatlicensesissuedbefore'RDC
'arenottobesubjecttothatoutcome.Ifthatisthecase,thenreconsideration ofexistinglicensesaftertherulemaking hasbeencompleted wouldbeinappropriate andunnecessary.
Thestayingofthemandateisobviously ample'groundsformodification bytheCommission'of itssuspension instruc-tionssetforthintheGeneralPolicyStatement.
TheCommission itselfrecognized thatamotiontorecallitsdecisiontocon-veneproceedings toconsidersuspension ofexistinglicenseswouldbeappropriate ifthemandatewerestayed.SeeCommission Memorandum andOrder,'ermont'ahke'e Nu'c'1'ear'o'w'er
'Cor.(VermontYankeeNuclearPowerStation)and:'Con'sumers'ower Coman(Mid-landPlant,Units1and2),September 14,1976,slipop.at7.Intestimony beforetheJointCommittee onAtomicEnergyonAugust27,1976,theChairmanoftheCommission statedthat,depending ontheresultsoftherevisedenvironmental survey,theNRCmight'eek a.stayofthemandatewhichifgrantedcould4/serveasthe'asisforadditional licensing action.Thus,theCommission hasrecognized thatastayofthemandatewouldbecause.tochangeitsHRDCimplementation policies.
of'themandateservestomaintainthestatusquofor'ionofthestay.AlonuinGasTransmission Co.v.Thestayingthedura-T~ownshiofSomerset, 112F.Supp.86,90(D.N.J.1953).AstheSupremeCourtheldmorethansixtyyearsagotheappealmustberegardedaspendingandundisposed ofuntilaman-dateissues.Merrimack RiverSavinsBankv.Ci'tofCl'a'Cen'ter, 219U.S.4,Statement of.Marcus.A.Rowen,Chairman, U.S.NuclearRegu-latoryCommission, beforethe'ointCommittee onAtomicEnergy,August=27,1976,p.9.
527,536(1910).Ifanappealmustbeconsidered as"pendingandundisposed of",itwouldobviously beinappropriate foranagencytotake-thedrasticstepof"suspending anexistinglicensebasedonsuchincomplete'judicia'1 action.AbsenttheissuanceoftheCourtsmandate,thereisno'official judicialaction.AsstatedbytheEighthCircuit,"thiscourt,asdoesanyappellate court,actsformallyandofficially onlythroughitsmandate".
~Bailev.Hen'sl'ee, 309F.2d840,844(8thCir.1962).Morerecently,'he NinthCircuitdistinguished betweentheimmediate effectiveness ofamemorandum issuedinresponsetoamotionandtheabilitytostaya"judgment".
throughastayofmandate.YorkInternational'ni'ldin, Inc.v.crane522F.2d1061,1066(9thCir.1975).TheCommission wouldnotbewarranted inusingajudicialpronouncement notineffectasthebasisforthesuspension ofexistinglicenses.
FurthersupportforamendingtheGeneralStatement ofPolicyandsuspending pendingshowcauseproceedings canbefoundintherulemaking proceeding recentlycommenced bytheICommission.
Asshowninthenoticeofproposedrulemaking, "UraniumFuelCycleImpactsfromSpentFuelReprocessing andRadioactive WasteManagement",
41Fed.Reg.45849(October18,1976),theenvironmental
'impactsofreprocessing andwastemanagement asdescribed intherevisedinterimtablesetforthinthenoticearenotsignificantly different fromthoseinTableS-3,exceptfortheburialofsolidwastes(withouttheir releasetotheenvironment) rathe'rthantheirstorageinFretrievable form.Asnoted'intheCommission's pressreleaseaccompanying thenoticeofproposedrulemaking, theenviron-mentalimpactsoffuelreprocessing andwastemanagement astheyrelatetoindividual nuclearplantscontinuetobesmall,evenwhenimpactswhichwerenotcompletely accounted forinthepastareconsidered.
TheCommission hasalsoindicated thattheinterimfuelcyclerulecould'be'inplacewithinthree5/months.GiventhesefactorsandtheCommission's judgmentthatitspresentanalysisofreprocessing andwastemanagement impactisunlikelytobedramatically inerror,asuspension ofexistinglicensespendingpromulgation ofaninterimfuelcyclerulewould'notbesensibleadministrative policy.Forthereasonssetforthabove,Pennsylvania Power&LightCompanyrespectfully requeststhattheCommission modifyitsGeneralStatement ofPolicybydeletingthoseportionsrelatingtothesuspension ofexistinglicensesandsuspending allpendingshowcause/suspension proceedings
'basedonfuelcycleissues.Respectfully submitted, SHAN,PITTNAN,POTTS&TROWBRIDGE Dated:October21,1976ByJay+J.SibergCouns'elforPennsylvania Power&LightCompany5/Seestatement byMarcusA.Rowen,Chairman, NRC,inPressReleaseNo.76<<221,October13,1976.
UNITEDSTATESOFAEKRICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION Before'hommi's'sion IntheMatterofPENNSYLVANIA POWER6LIGHTCOMPANY(Susquehanna SteamElectricStation,Units162)DocketNos.50-38750-388CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoing "Pennsylvania Power&LightCompany's ResponseToMotionOfVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorporation DatedSeptember 27,1976"wereservedasfollows:BYHANDDELIVERY:
DEPOSITED INTHEU.S.MAIL:OfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington,'-D.
C.20555Docketing 6ServiceSectionU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555OfficeoftheExecutive LegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Mr.ChaunceyKepford2576BroadStreetYork,Pennsylvania Ms.JudithH.Johnsrud433OrlandoDriveStateCollege,Pennsylvania JayE.jSz,lbergzXlDated:October21,1976