ML19338C077
| ML19338C077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1971 |
| From: | Lowenstein R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310660 | |
| Download: ML19338C077 (3) | |
Text
-
-~._
.q;
-
- 2l; L
j 1-
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.l b
InithenMatter'of'
')
/3 p.,f ') / '
-l
)
' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and.2)
-)
APPLICANT'S; MOTION FOR-ORDER REQUIRING INTERVENORS TO STATE'THEIR CONTENTIONS, AND THE BASES THEREFOR, AND FOR A PRECLUSION ORDER i
1.
As is more fully. set forth in Section I of Applicant's
. Memorandum dated October 23, 1971 "In Response to the End-of-
' September. Submissions" of the opposing intervenors, the
. opposition intervenors' (Saginaw, Mapleton, and EDF) have failedito comply with the Board order of August 26, which
. required them'to fileEby September 30, 1971'"a preliminary.
l statement of.their-views on environmental questions".*
As-set 1forth in'the Board's Order of August 26,11971, intervenors' statements were to cover the following:
"1.
Identify those1 aspects of the environment,:
e.g.,
air quality,-water quality, land use, etc.
which they presently believe would be~ adversely.
affected by the proposed plant and specify'in detail the nature-of each adverse effect~as.they_
presently perceive ~it.-
l
=2.;
The1 alternatives'to'the proposed plant _which
-should be considered by the-Board-and the, reasons,-
1
- in$ detail, why theyfconsider any of those'alterna-tives?to be preferable to*the proposed plant.
- 3.: >Identifylthe' facts which should'be' considered
- by the Board-in its " risk-benefit" analysis with-e particularDattention to'the importance tolbe attached
- by-: the. Board to; theE ef fect of the decision."
-[page 4]l
.^.
- 8;o07s10$.(,p.,.'d Q u
c
~
' b.
]
,j 2.
For' reasons more fully' set forth in Section I of Applicant's Memorandum of October-23, 1971, the various int'ervenors should each be required -to set forth, by November 10, 1971,- their contentions, if they have any, as to any 2
- adverse environmental effects from the proposed plant, together with~the bases for such-contentions.
The order should~ preclude the_ assertion ~of~any contentiens regarding alleged adverse environmental-effects with respect to any matter not'so set forth, without prejudice to a future determination.as to~whether there is any violation of pro-ceduralirequirements of'NEPA or of Appendix D (10 CFR Part 50)'as to-which--intervenors may. complain.
-3. ~Intervenors have had ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the plant.and with environmental effects from the plant as a-resultiof their participation in this case for almost one year, the -filing of Applicant's environmental
_ report,-the-filing of Applicant'-s comments'on: agency comments, the-filing by Applicant of a supplement-environmental report, the materials.previously. furnished to intervenors in pre-hearingiproceedings, - and thef evidence adduced at the hearing.
- Clearly.there has been.no showing of:cause by the intervenors
~. as :to why; they. areLunable to do _ so.
i t
8 f
s N
e.
-e.
m
+
4
.s
^s
L...
m y
i =4.. Wherefore,l Applicant requests the issuance.of an
-order as~ described in paragraph 2, above.
-Dated:
October:23, 1971'
~
' Respectfully submitted,
.l hm m__
LOWENSTElli AND NEWMAN 1100~ Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel, Harold P. Graves' Robert Lowenstein
- John K. Restrick Jerome E. Sharfman Richard ~G. Smith-
,e f
i 1
e N
e
-l l
l
^
1
-. -...