ML19331A925

Response to Util Motion to Recall Show Cause Proceedings. Util Motion Should Be Denied as Efforts to Build Facility Would Be Avoiding Environ & Safety Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331A925
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/31/1976
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19331A923	List: ML19331A922 ML19331A925
References
NUDOCS 8007240515
Download: ML19331A925 (4)

Text

____ _ _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8 .'

, ni before the 5 i

[J 9  %.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 <

I

.?

) As In the Matter of )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

) .

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO RECALL SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS Saginaw and Mapleton Intervenors, by their attorney, hereby oppose the motion of Consumers Power Company to recall show cause proceedings. In support of this opposition, Intervenors state:

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") has delegated to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board responsibility for implemen-ting the Commission's show cause proceedings. That order deprived the NRC of direct jurisdiction on the issues of Consumers Power Company's (" Consumers") motion, and Consumers' motion should be ,

directed to the Licensing Board in the first instance. ,

2. Consumers' motion is really a broadside attack on por-tions of the Commission's General Statement of Policy of August 13, 1976. As such, it should be considered as a comment to the General Statement of Policy since the Statement its. elf sets up a mechanism to receive reactions like the assertions underlying Consumers' show cause proceedings motion.

8007240 h f -

3.

Even if the Commission were to entertain Consumers' motion, we think it should be denied because:

(a) prompt implementation of the Court of Appeals' decision concerning the Midland facility must take place now or the NRC will be joining in Consumers' transparent efforts to build the Midland facility and avoid consideration of any of the environmental and safety issues required to be heard on remand; ,

(b) Consumers Power Company has not set out any reasons of any nature as to why it might be successful in the Supreme Court and for that reason the equities are on the side of Intervenors in connection with the show cause suspension pro-ceedings; and (c) the show cause suspension proceedings must move for-ward promptly since we believe that (if fairly analyzed) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will have no recourse but to halt construction of the Midland facility in anticipation of the remanded hearings in connection with energy conservation, an invalid ACRS letter, other environmental issues, and a re-vised cost analysis including consideration of fuel cycle issues.

For all of the above reasons, Consumers Power Company's motion to recall show cause proceedings should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, h

Myrod'j Cherry, Attorney fo Saginaw and Ma ston Intervenors Myron M. Cherry Suite 4501 Dated: August 31, 1976 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 .

312/565-1177 -

-2 ,

6 C /

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA H6 9 NN+

p a

~

ch

before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c;

o o^q'.Y'

's

)i 4 ,

)

In the Matter of '

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

)

50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of the attached Intervenors' Response to Consumers Power Company's Motion to Recall Show Cause Proceedings were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail at One IBM Plaza, postage prepaid and properly addressed, on August 31, 1976:

Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. C. R. Stephens Supervisor, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter L. Strauss, Esq.

General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard K. Shapar, Esq., Executive Legal Director U '. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

e u

. . ~%

Howard J. Vogel, Esq.

Post Office Box 5108 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 The Honorable Attorney GeneralVern Miller Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Daniel M. Head, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Washington, D.C. Regulatory Commission 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member .

Atomic U. S. Safety and Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Washington, Regulatory Commission D.C. 20555

• Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Member 10807 Atwell .

Houston, Texas 77096 Myron (W l'tlE 3 and M I Cherry, Attorney f'r Saginaw eton Intervenors Dated: August 31, 1976 -

Myron M. Cherry Suite 4501 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 312/565-1177  !

l l

l 1

l I