ML19326D415
| ML19326D415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1975 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| ALAB-282, NUDOCS 8006110432 | |
| Download: ML19326D415 (6) | |
Text
.
F.
<r.
m 9
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
,,,,..y gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u t -
b JUL2 5 875 > g i
\\.
a*W:
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g
ed**A N
f ww Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman A
9 W
Michael C. Farrar, Member John B. Farmakides, Member
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
ORDER July 25, 1975 (ALAB - 282)
On July 18, 1975, the Licensing Board rendered its initial decision in this antitrust proceeding involving Units 1 and 2 af the Midland Plant.
In view of the number and complewity of the issues presented in the proceeding and decided by the Board in its lengthy opinion, and the voluminous evidentiary record adduced below, it is patent that there must be an enlargement under 10 CFR 2.711(a) of the time periods prescribed by 10 CFR 2.762 for the various steps in the appellate process.
The parties have now jointly submitted to us a proposed schedule for the 8006110 N 2 g
e
- filing of exceptions to the initial decision and the briefing of any appeal or appeals which may be taken.
In the totality of circumstances, we deem the agreed-upon schedule to be entirely reasonable and, accordingly, it is hereby ratified.
las provisions are as follows:
1.
September 8, 1975 - The filing of exceptions to the initial decision by any party deeming itself to be aggrieved by the result reached in that decision.
See Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-157, 6 AEC 858 (1973). S 2.
November 3,1975 - The filing by the appellant (s) of the brief(s) in support of its (their) exceptions.
3.
January 5,1976 - The filing by the appellee (s) of the brief(s) in opposition to the exceptions filed by j
appellant (s).
_1/
It is often the case that a party will be entirely satisfied with the result but, at the same time, will not subscribe to some of the fi'ndings of fact or conclusions of law contained in the initial decision.
In such circumstances, although normally precluded from taking an independent appeal, that party will be free to challenge any or all of those findings or conclusions in defending the result (should it be appealed by some other party which is seeking a different result).
See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, NRCI-75/4 347,357 (April 8,1975).
In the event that the appellee (s) should pursue this course here, the appellant (s) will have an oppor-tunity to respond to the challenge by way of the reply brief(s).
4.
January 26, 1976 - The filing by the appellant (s) of a reply brief(s), which shall be confined to a response to arguments advanced in the brief(s) of the appellee (s).
It is the present contemplation of this Board that oral argument on any appeal (s) which may be taken will be l
calendared for sometime during the latter half of February, 1976.
At least three weeks advance notice of the precise date of argument will be provided to the parties.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD h
1r on r>
Margaret E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
't
, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY CorJ:ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPAtIY
)
Docket No.(s) 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
)
CERTTFICATE OF 9ER" ICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon cach person designated on the of ficial service list compiled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Ccenission in this proceeding in accordance vith the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the ::ucicar Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D C. this
[0 day of
/ 4(_/ c/
197 c'7 &
/
hkG W /)f./
e y
/
Of fice of the Secretary of tiic Commission
~
9 0
UNITED STATES OF Ai! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tD!ISSION
~
In the Matter of
-)-
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No.(s) 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
1 I
)
)
i SERVICE LIST Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman George Spiegel, Esq.
t P. O. Box 127A James Carl Pollock, Esq.
Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20037 Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.
P. O. Box 941 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Houston, Texas 77001 Vice President and General Counsel Consuners Power Company Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
217 West Michigan Avenue
. Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Antitrust Counsel i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph J. Saunders, Esq., Chief Washington, D. C.
20555 Public Counsel and Legislative Section Antitrust Division Mr. Abraham Braitman, Chief U. S. Department of Justice Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.
20530 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William T. Clabault, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Antitrust. Division P. O. Box 7513 David A. Leckie, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20044
'Public Counsel Section Antitrust Division Grace Dow Memorial Library l
Department of Justice 1710 West St. Andrew Road Washington, D. C.
20530 Midland, Michigan 48640 i
William Warfield Ross, Esq.
Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Keith S. Watson, Esq.
U. S. Department of Justice Toni K. Golden, Esq.
P. O. Box 7513 Wald, Harkrader, Nicholson & Ross Washington, D. C.
20044 1320 19 th Streat, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 e
e
,a e==-
- +.
i e-w--
mew-7
30-329A, 330A, page 2 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safe'y and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissian Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Michael C. Farrar Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 John B. Farmakides, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 i
e
.p