ML19326D144
| ML19326D144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1978 |
| From: | Ross W CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006060721 | |
| Download: ML19326D144 (4) | |
Text
"-
~
, 9. ~
/
./ s I
i S
4hV t'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RT3ULATORY COM!1ISSION
//
g,'
t s.
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
SUw330K To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW Consumers Power Company (" Consumers Power") is an applicant in the above-captioned proceeding for licenses to construct Midland Units 1 and 2.
On December 30, 1977, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board")
reversed an initial decision of the licensing board which had held that Consumers Power's proposed activities under the Midland licenses would not " create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws" pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S 2135 (c).
See ALAB-452 (issued December 30, 1977).
Under Section 2.788 (b) (1) of the Commission's rules, a party may petition the Commission l-to review certain decisions or actions of the Appeal Board i
i within 15 days after service of such a decision or action.
Subsection b(2) of that Rule limits the length of such petition to 10 pages.
For the reasons stated below, Consumers Power moves the Commission for an order extending the time to file 800608072I s#1
. a petition to review by 30 days, i.e. to February 14, 1977, and to enlarge the aforesaid page limitation to 30 pages.
The Appeal Board decision consumes 432 pages.
Its length reflects the fact that the proceeding in question has been in litigation since 1971 and has involved a detailed review of Consumers Power's activities and relations With neighboring utility systems since 1960.
In numerous instances, the Appeal Board decision reflects a de novo review of the record and a reversal of crucial findings of fact of the licensing board.
Further, the case is "the first full-fledged antitrust decision on the merits rendered by a licensing board,"
ALAB-452 (p. 2), and therefore the Appeal Board decision addressed numerous heretofore unresolved issues of law and policy.
In these circumstances, it will require considerably 1/
more than 15 calendar days for Consumers Power to review the Appeal Board decision and, if it deems Commission review to be appropriate, to prepare the requisite petition.
- Likewise, if Consumers Power chooses to file a petition, 10 pages is manifestly insufficient to permit the Company to apprise the Commission of the many errors of " fact, law [and] policy" which would form the basis for our appeal under Section 2.786.
This
-1/
Because of intervening week-ends and holidays, the 15-day period would in fact expire after caly 8 working days.
~
J
particularly so because, as noted above, a principal basis for the appeal would be that the Appeal Board resolved many factual is.ues "in a clearly erroneous manner contrary to the resolution of that same issue by the.
. Licensing Board."
See Section 2.786 (b) (4) (ii) adopting this as a standard for granting review.
A comparison of challenged Appeal Board findings with contrary findings of the Initial Decision in the light of the extensive evidentiary record would require detailed examination, even on a selective basis.
In the event Consumers Power files a review petition, counsel will make every effort to prepare as succinct a petition as possible.
We have been authorized to state by counsel for each of the other parties to this proceeding, including the Commission staff, that they do not oppose favorable action on the instant Motion.
WHEREFORE, Consumers Power Company moves the Commission to waive the applicable portions of Section 2.786 (b) (1) and (2) so as to authorize the Company to file a petition to review ALAB-452 on or before February 14, 1977, and to authorize a petition of no longer than 30 pages.
Respectfully submitted, Mm. Warfield Ross Keith S. Watson WALD, IIARKRADER & ROSS 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 296-2121 January 4, 1978 Counsel for Consumers Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 4th day of January, 1978, served a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW by mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons:
!! ugh K. Clark, Esquire Mark Levin, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety Forrest Bannon, Esquire and Licensing Board Antitrust Division Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20555 P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C.
20044 Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Antitrust Counsel for Nuclear The Honorable Frank Kelly Regulatory Commission Staff Attorney General Nuclear Regulatory Commission State of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20545 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Chase R. Stephens, Chief Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.
Docketing & Service Branch P. O. Bcx 941 Office of the Secretary llouston, Texas 77001 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Spiegel & McDiarmid Seth R. Burwell, Esquire 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Burwell & Shrank Washington, D.C.
20037 1020 Washington Square Building Lansing, Michigan 48933 i
s' 4L/
e
' t>
- "KEITH S.
WATSON I
i b