ML19330A227
| ML19330A227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1977 |
| From: | Skrutski R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Saginaw Intervenor |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007151004 | |
| Download: ML19330A227 (7) | |
Text
f f
/f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD A
g h# %[ 6 Michael C. Farrar, Chairman h
Richard S. Sal:: man 6
($
g Dr. W. Reed Johnson
+
P In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
ORDER October 12, 1977 1.
The Licensing Board has rendered a 40 page opinion elaborating its reasons for declining to order construction of the Midland facility suspended.
LBP-77 7,
5 1/
6 NRC _, (September 23, 1977). -
The Saginaw Intervenors have filed 72 separate exceptions to that decision.
In l/
Out of an abundance of caution, the Licensing Board referred its ruling to us, expressing uncertainty whether its order would otherwise be appealable.
The referral was unnecessary.
The order permits construction of Midland to continue prior to a final Board decision on the validity of the con-struction permits remanded by the -ourt of appeals.
In this respect it is analogous to an order authorizing construction pursuant to a limited work authorization.
Both have immediate force and effect because they affirmatively authorize construction activities to go on in advance of a finally approved construction permit.
Accord-ingly, both are final orders and therefore may be brought before us on appeal as of right.
Section 2.730(f) of the Rules of Practica.
10 C.F.R. 52.730(f),only proscribes appeals from interlocutory orders.
HI THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 800715IOOy POOR QUAUTY PAGES
[
9
--2 accordance with the Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. 82.7 62 (a)),
these exceptions are essentially in the form of statements of claimed errors of fact and law, and include neither extensive supporting arguments nor references to the volumi-nous record below.
Now before us is Intervenors' motion to waive their obligation under the Rules to brief those exceptions.
In opposing that waiver, the applicant points out that the requirement for briefs is intended to facilitate evaluation on appeal by spreading the appellant's arguments and positions on the record --
" flesh [ing] out the bare bones exceptions"
-- thereby presenting the Appeal Board "with sufficient information or argument to allow an intelligent disposition of
[the) issues," * * *.
A second " salutary purpose" of the rule is to permit fair rebuttal by those holding opposing views The absence of a supporting brief not only creates a more burdensome and i
time consuming task for the Appeal Board, it places appellees at an unfair disad-vantage by prohibiting their ascertaining what legal authorities or pertions of the record are relied upon in the exceptions, thereby preventing intelligent responae.
(Citations omitted.)
The staff agrees.
That we also find those arguments cogent should come as no surprise to intervenors.
This is not the first but the third occasion we have had in this case I
- to call their attention to the need for and the importance of briefing exceptions.
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1&2), ALAB-395, 5 NRC 772, 785 (1977;; and ALAB-270, 1 NRC 473 (1975).
The Saginaw Intervenors' motion to waive the filing of a brief is denied; they may have until October 26, 1977 to file and serve an appropriate supporting brief.
Requests for additional briefing time will not F2 looked on with favor.
2.
Also before us is the Saginaw Antervenors' motion of October 8, 1977 for summary reversal of the decision below or a stay of construction pending completion of the 2/
remanded hearing.
The motion is properly before us--
and responses to it are due to be filed and served on or before October 20, 1977.
It is our present intention to calendar oral argument on this motion promptly upon receipt of those responses.
Accordingly, requests for additional briefing time will not he looked on with favor.
5 2/
Out of an abundance of caution the intervenors have also filed this motion before the Commission
~
n e
..s
_4_
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD mm 0h Rqiayne M'.,/Skrutski Secretaiy to the Appeal Board I
s I
~
m A8 UNITED STATES OF A.TRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORi' CO:DtISSION In the !!atter of
)
)
CONSIDERS P0h*ER COMPANY
)
Docket No.(s) 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SER'! ICE _
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official _ service' list'co= piled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance uith the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and l i Regu at ons.
Dated fashington, D C. this
]
day of
)
197 s
2 f ffice of tb Secretary of the Commission 0
o h
_. ~ -
yr..
v.
,---,,.4
~...-
rm UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS P75.R COMPANY
)
Docket No.(s) 50-329
)
50-330-(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
SERVICE LIST i
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nucient Regulatory Co= mission Washington, D.C.
20555.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke
_ James A. Kendall, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Currie and Kendall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 135 North Saginaw Road Washington, D.C.
20555 Midland, Michigan 48640 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Judd L. Bacen, Esq.
10807 Atwell Consumers Power Company Houston, Texas 77096 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson,' Michigan 49201 Office of the Executive Legal Director Counsel for NRC Staff William J. Ginster, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Merrill Building, Suite 4 Washington, D.C.
20555 Saginaw, Michigan 48602 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 I
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowensteir., Newman, Reis & Axelrad Honorable Curtis G. Beck 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20036 State of Michigan Seven Story Office Building Honorable Charles A. Briscoe 525 West Ottawa Assistant Attorney General Lansing, Michigan 48913 State of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 66612 Lee Nute, Esq.
Michigan Division Irving Like, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Company Reilly, Like and Schneider 47 Building 200 Weat bbin Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Babylon, New York 11702
~
,50-329, -330 page 2 Anthony Z. Roisman, Eso.
Natural.Resou'rces Defense Council 917 - 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1050 - 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael' I. Miller, Esq.
Caryl A. Bartelman, Esq.
Isham,- Lincoln & Beale One First National Bank Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler, P.E.
2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Grace Dow Memorial Library 1710 West St. Andrew Road Midland, Michigan 48640 i
1.
.'