ML20207E285

Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717

ML20207E285
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/16/1986
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), MAPLETON INTERVENORS, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#386-033, CON-#386-33 78-389-03-OL, 78-389-3-OL, 80-439-02-SP, 80-439-2-SP, OL, OM, NUDOCS 8607220290
Download: ML20207E285 (2)

Text

- __ __ ________ -_

D DOCKETED USNRC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! 116 Jll.17 P2:01 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges f0C ET G Si VI f BRANCH Charles Bechhoefer, Chaiman Dr. Jerry Harbour Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. ..

see actj7393g

)

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL In the Matter of ) 50-330 OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) (ASLBPNos. 78-389-03 OL

) 80-439-02 SP)

July 16, 1986 ,

ORDER (Responses to Motions to Dismiss /Tenninate Proceedings)

By motion dated July 11, 1986, Consumers Power Co. (CPC) has moved to dismiss the operating-license (0L) proceeding and to terminate the Order of Modification (0M) proceeding. In responding to this motion, the parties (including CPC) are invited to address, inter alia, the following questions:

1. Should the requested termination of the OM proceeding be regarded as a withdrawal of CPC's request for a hearing, thus resulting in an amendment of the construction permits (at least on a pro forma basis) to incorporate the terms sought by the Modification Order?  !

l G

\ T)SO'

.. ,N.

2

2. Would the actions proposed by CPC's motion require that the NRC prepare an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 6 51.317

3. What conditions, if any, should be imposed by us pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.107(a)? Would environmental conditions be necessary or appropriate to govern the possible situation where the Midland site would not eventually be used for a gas-fired facility?

4. If the proceedings are dismissed, what agency would have responsibility for actions under NEPA?

4 Responses of other parties to CPC's motion need not be limited to answers to the foregoing questions. Responses of all parties (including CPC's answers to these questions) should be submitted within 10 days of service of this Order (15 days in the case of the Staff). See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2ndo /J?n ,J Charles Bechhoefer, Chaignan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

{

,