ML19331B082
| ML19331B082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1974 |
| From: | Bender P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Saginaw Intervenor |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250778 | |
| Download: ML19331B082 (7) | |
Text
-
[ihc
, W"
~
UNIT 5DSTATESOFAMERICA
/
f-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION S
Ik O
N COMMISSIONERS:
/D nac1UO 7
/ ) '9 ^ l JUL101974* 3 Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman William 0. Doub 0
O' c m et e: W 3
William A. Anders rz:g:;cu$
)
In the Matter of
)
CONSUMERS PC'..'ER COMPANY Construction Permits
)
Nos. 81 & 82 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
MEMORA!'DUM AI'D ORDER The Saginaw Group of intervenors has petitioned us for financial assistance in support of their participation in this proceeding. They seek Commission funds "with which to retain one or more experts qual'fied in the area of quality assurance" and "with which to ' pay reasonable attorneys fees." No specific amount is requested.
The law in this area is currently in a state of. flux (see Wilderness Societv v. M'rton, F.2d (C.A.D.C.1974)), and we therefore in-o vited.the other parties to this proceeding to submit their views on Saginau's petition. Memoranda in opposition have been received from the regulatory staff, the licensee, and the intervenor Bechtel Power Corporation. Saginaw has replied.
l We have concluded that, whatever the scope of our authority, if any, to grant financial assistance to intervenor groups, the Saginaw petition must be denied for lack of a proper showing of need. According to its 1
)
-l THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 8007250 7 7 {1 POOR QUALITY PAGES
=.
j 2
request for hearing in this proceeding, the "Saginaw Group" is comprised of five organizations, including " Sierra Club, San Francisco, California i
(and its lichigan affiliates)" and " United Auto Workers of America."
With j
reference to the question of need, the petition is supported only by an affidavit from one person who states, without specification, that she is "a member of two of the organizations which comprise the Saginaw Group."
Offering her affidavit "on behalf of the Saginaw Group and its constituent 1
organizations", she states that three of the.five organizaticos have no 1
i.
funds available to them, and that 'the remaining two organizations, Sierra Ciub and the United Auto Workers, "do not have funds, in addition to that required for their normai operations, available to pay all or any part of i
the costs and fees in connection with this. proceeding." flo affidavits or 1
other supporting papers.have been filed by responsible officials of the Sierra Club, United Auto Workers, or the other organizations in the Saginaw
]
Group.
i According to the " Labor Organization Annual Report" (Form LM-2) filed i
]
by the " International Union -- United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Impleme'nt Workers of America -- U.A.W." 3 with the U.S. Department of Labor 1
i on April 4,1974, pursuant to federal reportina requirements, that organi-1 zation had net assets of $127,864,986 as of December 31, 1973. As to the 1
I
' ~
Sierra Club, its national President recently wrote a letter to Busines's 1.
,l/
This is presuma61y the same organization referred to in the Saginaw j
petition f6r intervention.
j.
1
}
r
3 Week magazine to the effect that that organization's financial condition was sound and improving. He noted that " nondeductible contributions to theclubarerunningwellaheadofpreviousyears."E/
Even if we were to indulge the assumption that all of the available funds of these two organizations are cresently earmarked for other pur-
. poses -- no basis for such an assumpt on is presently before us -- Saginaw i
would not necessarily be entitled to consideration for financial assis-tance from this Commission.
Interve,ntion in our licensing proceedings, based on affirmations of bona fide interest, carries with it an obligation to bear often. substantial costs to the extent of the intervenor's capa-bilities. Thus, intervention may sometimes require an intervening organi-zation to re-order its budgetary priorit'ies. While we do not suggest that an intervenor must show that it is totally without funds from any source as a precondition to seeking assistance from this Commission, we would re-quire a substantial showing, from a responsible official, that all reason-able efforts have been made unsuccessfully to provide sufficient funds for the intervention. Absent such a showing, the bona fides of the interven-tion is~ called into question.
2/
Letter from Laurence I. Moss, President, Sierra Club, to Business Week, reprinted'.in the April 27, 1974, issue. We note in this connection that, with a copy of-this letter before it, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently denied, without opinion, a motion by the Saginaw Group to crosecute on appeal before it in a related proceeding without preparing an appendix, on the alleged ground l
that they lacked the necessary furds for that ourpose.
Sacinau Vallev_
l Nuclear Study Grouc, et al. v. AEC, No. 73-1867, order of June 17, 1974.
I
.s.
4
~
Apparently perceiving some anomoly in its petition for assistance on behalf of the Sierra ' Club and the United Auto Workers, Saginaw re-quests in its reply that --
If... the fact that the Sierra Club and the United Auto Workers are a part of the Petitioners is considered to be a determining factor on need, then Petitioners ask the Commission to treat the reauest for financial assistance as made on behalf of the Petitioners except the Sierra Club and United Auto Workers, and Petitioners will ask to dismiss the Sierra Club and United Auto Workers as Petitioners.
We decline to grant this request. Like the petition for financial assis-F tance, and unlike the original petition for intervention, this request is not*s-upported by any statement from a responsible official of these organizstions that they wish to withdraw from these proceedings. More importantly, these proceedings and the related construction permit pro-ceedings concerning the Midland facility have been in progress now for almost four years.
During that time, according to scores of submissions to this agency and to the reviewing court of appeals, the Sierra Club
~
and the United Auto Workers have been marching under Saginaw's banner.
Saginaw cannot have it both ways, presumably seeing a benefit in asso-ciating itself with these nationally-known organizations, until the means
\\
available to these organizations threaten to compromise its claim of need, j
3/
Saginaw's petition to intervene in the construction permit proceedings was supported by signed " affirmations" of authorized representatives of the Sierra Club-and United Auto Workers. Consumers Power Co.,
Docket Nos. 50-329, 330, R. 2436, 2467-68. Viewing this proceeding as "merely another round in a continuing controversy" growing out of the construction permit proceeding, we did not recuire Saginaw to file a second formal intervention petition in this related pro-ceeding. Consumers Power Co., RAI-74-1-7, at p.12.
e
5 The Saginau petition is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
By the Coanission.
._ dul d h fdx PAUL C. BEi! DER N N
Secretary of the Commission Dated at Gennantown, Kl.
d 1974-this 10th ay of July i
f L
4 UNITED STATES OF A.' ERICA
~
~
ATOMIC E:~ERGY C0:0!ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUPERS PO*.s'ER COMPANY
)
Docket No.(s) CPPR-81
)
CPPR-82
'(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
y
)
)-
. ' CERTIFICATE OF SER'.' ICE s
- I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s* ' )
~
upon ecch persen designated en the official service list compiled by' the Of fice of the Secretcry of the Cc=ission_ in this proceeding in accordance with the require =ents of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Atc=ic Encr;;y Cc=ission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Was.Mn;; ten, D. C. this
//\\T' day ofb /. /!
1974
/
)
J.
N JD $ di))G M/
~
Office of the Secrc ary of the Cc=aission s
e 1
J s
)
1 Lu.
/
UNITED STATES OF AYERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
~
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. CPPR-81,82
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Michael Glaser, Esq. s C' airman Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safe _y and Licensing Board 1150 17th Street, N. W.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20545
~
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Jenner and Block U. S. Atomic Energy Cc= mission One IBM Plaaa Washington, D. C. 20545 Chicago, Illinois 60611 James P. Murray, Jr. Esq.
Roy E. Kinsey, Jr., Esq.
Office of General Counsel Office of General Counsel Regulation Regulation Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
John Gerald Gleeson, Esq.
Consumers Power Cc=pany Leslie F. Nute, Esq.
212 West Michigan Avenue The Dow Che=ical Company Jackson, Michigan 49201 Midland, Michigae 48640 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Paul W. Koval, Esq.
R. Rex Renfrew, III, Esq.
Legal Department Isham, Lincoln & Beale Consumers Pctier Ccapany One First National Plaza 212 W. Michigcn Avenue Chicago, Illinois. 60670 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Laurence M. Scoville, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Karl Berg, Director Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons Grace Dow Memorial Library and Prewitt 1710 West St. Andrew Road First Federal Building,1600 Midland, Michigan 48640 1001 Woodwara, Avenue i
Detroit, Michigan 48226
- l l
l
.