ML19347A662
| ML19347A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1978 |
| From: | Gibbs M, Mark Miller CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310568 | |
| Download: ML19347A662 (20) | |
Text
> --
-n ~
I ,
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
'Before the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board
)
'In the Matter Of )
)
CONSUMERS. POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 30-330
^
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
).
)
ANSWER OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO SAGINAW VALLEY NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 4
Consumers Power Company (" Consumers Power" or
" Licensee"),-pursuant-to the Rules of Practice of the Nuclear e Regulatory Commission ' (the "NRC" or the " Commission") ,
hereby answers the Petition for Leave to Intervene of the Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group ("Saginaw" or " Petitioner")- _.
'in the operating license proceeding for the Midland Plant, Units 1~and 2.
8'007'108 b g
-'n.
g y w 'F = *
. L.. '_ _C -
' ' ~ "" ~
T
' ~
- ~ q '
4 z ..e' l
l 1
I. PETITIONER DOES NOT ADEQUATELY 4
JSET FORTH ITS: IDENTITY OR ITS '
INTEREST-IN THE PROCEEDING M LIn' assessing'the adequacy of a petition'to intervene filedspursuant toL10!C.F.R. 52.714,* the-Atomic Safety and
~ '
.' Licensing Board . (" Licensing Board") must. first determine whether h ithe document sets forth."with particularity" the interest of
[ the petitioner in the proceeding, how tha't interest may be -
f- affected by the results~of'the proceeding, including the i~
l reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene. That.
L Ldetermination is-to be made with particular reference to F certain"specified' factors.** The-NRC has' ruled that contemporary I
concepts of judicial standing are'to be-used in deciding whether.
- a petitioner for intervention has a sufficient interest, Portland b LGeneral Electric Co. (Pebble . Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
- 2) ~, CLI 27, NRC 610 (1976). See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 i ,
{; U.S. 727' (1972) for a: discussion of those concepts. Obviously,
[ in order to fulfill-these requirements, the-petitioner must first adequately identify'itself. Saginaw has failed to do so and -
~
it's. petition is;therefore. defective.
f .-
'*/_ This section,;asLwell as.other portions of the NRC's-
- Jules of - Practice, were amended l effective May -26, .1978
- (43
- Fed.7 Reg. :- 17798) .-- The' portions oflS2.714 dealing with the -
petitioner's; description of its. interest are essentially the
- same'in bothothe old and'the amended rule, however.
- (1).iTEnature of. the petitioner's right under the Act to
~
'**/
R made a.ytrtyito the2 proceeding. . ,
, , -((2)iThe: nature and extent .of the ' petitioner's property, fin-
'ancial, Dor other' interest in the proceeding.
1 (3)LThe;possible offact of.any order which may be: entered in
,the proceeding;on'the petitioner's interest. 10 C.F.R. 52.714 (d) .
2
%? b
.in. _,.
y' = f I. 4 'e
. ga *J .t 5 Av ,a ~
. w,. \ . _ '- . . . : -, .,:,e, ,L.-. .,..-A,
n . a
.1 l
I
' Petitioner refers to itself as "Saginaw Valley' ,
Nuclear Study Group," which is described'as "an unincorporated association comprised of citizens and residents of-Michigan who are it.terested in the dissemination of information and stimula-tion of public awareness and involvement in the study'of nuclear power" (Petition, 11). Aside from mentioning Mary P.' Sinclair, the person who verified the Petition and who is to be included' on the service list, nowhere in the Petition does Saginaw 9et forth the number or names of the persons who comprise the association, or give any evidence to support the assertion that some of them live in Midland, Michigan.
As NRC cases discussing standing to intervene make clear, an organization can represent only its own members, Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) , LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC 481, 483 (1977). Thus, it becomes essential to know the -identity of those members whom Saginaw '
purports to represent. Furthermore, not only-must the identity of the members of the organization whose interest may be affected _
and how such interest may be affected be shown, but there must also be a showing .that the individual .who signed the petition has been duly authorized to represent the petitionar and that;the members either requested or consented to be represented by the petitioner in this ^ proceeding. See Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station) , LBP-75-60, . 2 NRC 687, - 690 - (1975) , affirmed, ALAB-328, 3 NRC-420 (1976).
i^ ._.
4 . ,w,,
e- m+-..m_.
.W4 4- -
It is also evident that Saginaw cannot claim to represent some general group.(consisting of the population h
of Michigan, for instance), for NRC practico does not permit anyone to act as.a " private attorney-general," Shoreham, LBP-77-ll, supra at 484. Similarly, it is settled law that a person cannot claim standing by virtue of being a taxpayer or a ratepayer of the Licensee, Pebble Springs, CLI-76-27, i
, supra; Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and .2) , ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 . (1977) . Saginaw,
, however, attempts to allege an interest in the proceeding as a ratepayer of Licensee in Paragraphs 4 and 8 of its Petition.
Saginaw relies upon the fact that it participated in the construction permit proceeding for the Midland Plant as a justification for its intervention in the instant proceeding (Petition, 11). This reliance is, however, ,
misplaced since it. has been held that participation .in a prior-licensing proceeding involving the same facility does not adequately establish petitioner's interest in subsequent proceedings. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom -
JAtomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LPB-75-22, 1 NRC 451, 455 (1975). It should be' remembered, too, that there has been no showing that-Saginaw, an unincorporated association, now: includes the same people who intervened years ago.*
- /- , Furthermore, Mary P. Sinclair may be Saginaw's sole member. If that is the case, the' Petition should.be amended to name Ms.-Sinclair as the petitioner, rather than Saginaw.
i-
-%+m, v- --p- e'
-m -s For all of these reasons Saginaw's Petition is defective for failing to state clearly who are its members, what are their interests in the proceeding, and where they reside.*- Without that information, the Licensing Board cannot make a decision as to whether Sagniaw has set forth a sufficient interest under the requirements of 52.714 to give it standing to intervene in this proceeding.
II. CERTAIN OF PETITIONER'S CONTEN-TIONS ARE IMPROPER AND SHOULD BE DISALLOWED OR STRICKEN The second determination which the Licensing Board must make in assessing Saginaw's Petition is whether it has sufficiently identified "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the . proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene," 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (a) (2) . The instant Petition contains a section entitled " Statement of Contentions" (Petition, 1's 10-34) . As the amended version of 52.714 is more liberal.than the old rule in this regard, Saginaw's contentions will be evaluated using the new " aspect of the subject matter" standard.
Under.NRC practice, a petitioner who satisfies the interest requirement will be granted intervention if he states 1r Not everyone living within the State of Michigan has standing merely because the Midland Plant is located there; the cases establish: narrower geographical restrictions for standing purposes.
See Northern' States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, . Units :L and 2) , ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 190, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6lAEC 241 (1973);. Watts Bar, ALAB-413, supra.
t
. q
- one contention'with'in the' scope of the proceeding with a
~
' proper factual-basis. See Mississippi Power & Light Co. LS (Grand ' Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-130, 6 AEC
~423, 424 (1973). This rule is retained in amended 52.714(b).
Therefore,.at this state of the proceeding, Saginaw must
- specifically set forth at least one proper " aspect of the subject' matter" of this proceeding'as to which it wishes to intervene; otherwise, it could not possibly meet the "one good. contention" rule at a later date.
'In judging Saginaw's Petition in this respect, the Licensing Board should~ remember that it has no duty to recast contentions offered by a petitioner to make them acceptable under the regulations. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226r 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974). Furthermore, i
because no hearing is mandated by statute in an operating license -
.A case, a Licensing Board should "take'the utmost care" to ,
satisfy itself that the "one-good contention" rule is met, since absent a successful intervention no hearing.at the behest of the Petitioner need be held. Cincinnati Ga3 & Electric Co.
.(William'H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976). ~These same rules should apply to the specification _
of subject areas.
Turning f to' the specifics of the instant Petition, some'of;the purported subject areas are improper and must be l-t.
e
._r t,
~
- - a . - . - . . .
~
- ~ ..,
t m L.
4
. disallowed by the Licensing Board. Certain subject matters
- , as raised are clearly improper for-consideration at'the-operating license stage and-should be disallowed for that reason. Odder of Saginaw's contentions contain' matter which is impertinent and which therefore should be stricken.
A. Matters Outside the Scope of the Operating License Proceeding Saginaw sets forth. contentions in Paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 24, all of which generally concern the economics of the Midland Plant or of alternatives. The thrust of
- those arguments is that the nuclear facility is not "econom-ically justifiable" either for Licensee or for The Dow Chemihal Company ("Dow") , -which will buy process steam generated by the Midland Plant and electricity from Licensee's n
. .s system.1 These contentions are all defectively drawn, however, in light of the' requirements for the consideration of economic
' issues in licensing proceedings laid down in an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board :(" Appeal Board") decision in this docket. As' stated,Jthese contentions l attempt to raise
' issues which are outside the scope of the operating license proceeding..
LOn1 February 14,;1978, the' Appeal Board-dealt-
-exhaustive'ly with!the' topic of aconomic analysis under NEPA and'foundithat it;had no place in a' cost-benefit analysis l-3 N? '
.J I
~
f ['
, 3 of the Midland Plant once it had been established that the nuclear plant was'the environmentally-preferable alternative. 5 Consumers Pownr Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-458, 7 NRC _(February 14, 1978). That opinion is directly on point.
At the suspension hearing and in that Board's decision, extraordinary attention was paid to the relative financial costs of various alternatives. But there was no serious suggestion that any of those alternatives was preferable to Midland from an environmental standpoint. . . .
Th'.s'being so, we do not perceive that financial matters are as crucial as the Board below thought they were. Unless the proposed nuclear plant has environ-mental disadvantages in comparison to possible alternatives, differences in financial cost are of little concern to us. . . .
That Act [NEPA] requires us to consider ..
whether there are environmentally preferable A alternatives to the proposal before us. If there are, we must take the steps we can to see that they are implemented if that i can be accomplished at a reasonable cost; i.e., one not out of proportion to the 1 environmental advantages to be gained. But if there are no preferable environmental ~1 alternatives, such cost-benefit balancing I does not take place.- Manifestly, nothing I in NEPA calls upon us to sift through en-vironmentally inferior alternatives ia) find
~
a cheaper (but dirtier) way of handling the
' matter at hand. ALAB-458, Slip. op. at 9-11 -(footnotes omitted) -(emphasis in original) .
An examination of the contentions purportedly raised by Saginaw-in Paragraphs 17,19, 20 and 24 reveals idurt Peti-tioner'has'not demonstrated or even alleged'that the Midland l
l l
1
>~ - _ _ _ _ _ . . .
~
Plant is environmentally. inferior to a specified alternative.
In the absence of such a showing Petitioner may not raise $
economic issues in a NEPA context. Therefore these economically-oriented subject areas must be disallowed.
1 Saginaw again attempts to raise subject areas which may not be considered at'the operating license stage in Paragraphs'30-32 of the Petition. The contentions constitute i an-improper attack upon the rules of the NRC, for those
- paragraphs seek to challenge the commission's fuel cycle rule (Table S-3 to 10 C.F.R. 5 51. 20 (e) ) . Under the procedures
- set forth in 10 C.F.R. 52.758 a party may not challenge the validity of an NRC rule in a licensing proceeding. If that party seeks a waiver or exception of that rule under $2.758 (b) ,
he must demonstrate "special circumstances"; such a waiver or exception can be granted only in unusual and compelling circum- a
, stances. Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1)', CLI-72'-31, 5 AEC 25, 26 (1972). ,
4 Furthermore, a showing of special circumstances requires ,
more than a: mere allegation thereef, Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units,1 & 2) , ALAB-126, 6 AEC i 399, 402 n.10'(1973)~. As Petitioner has done nothing more l than make a. generalized attack upon the' subject of waste management, Paragraphs 30-32 do not-state specific. areas of
. interest in which Saginaw may assert' contentions in this i
- l proceeding.- The fact.that Table-S-3 is an~ interim rule does f
s yy- . , , -
.:+,:.- w ~ .w<
,- -- - ,. J
' ~
, ~10~
.not-change'any.of th'a conclusions with respect to Saginaw's-Petition..
The last area in-which Petition seeks to raise matters
, not; appropriate for considerarion in'the instant. proceeding involves a reference to " accident mechanisms" in connection with their analysis in' the Environmental Report -(Petition, i t's 15-16).- These contentions are so vague that it is impossible to discern what: type of accident Petitioner is referring (to. However, if Petitioner is alluding to a. Class 9 accident, it is beyond cavil that such a contention is outside the scope of this prr>ceeding, for it was established in Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir.1975) that the intC does not have to consider such'an accident in a NEPA review.*
5
~ ;B .
. Matters.Which Are Offensive And Should Be Stricken In addition to those contentions which improperly' ..
attempt ~to raise economic issues, certain portions of Saginaw's contentions contain matter which is1 highly inappropriate tand offensive and should be stricken from the Petition.
E If PetitionerJis alluding :-to a safety issue ~ involving .aut
- accident possibility attributable to a design feature of the plant mandated 'by 'NRC . regulations, then 'it. is . clear that ' Petitioner must ishow "special' circumstances" involving.the Midland' Plant before
'such:a' contention may be~ considered. Consolidated Edison Co.-of
' New-YorkJ(IndianLPoint. Unit.No. 2)',iCLI-72-29, 5 AEC 20, 21-(1972).
' m -There must be ac. showing that the potential for occurrence of the-
- accident passes"some
- test 1of' credibility.
\ c
< < ~
-~
+
a
,7 ,y
~
m m.
Portions of Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 cast ~ aspersions upon the . character and competence of the NRC Staff. Such un-warranted' attacks upon the Commission's Staff are an affront to the dignity of the Commission and of this proceeding.
Therefore, Licensee believes it is important that this Licensing Board should exercise ite general power under 10 C.F.R. S2.718 and strike those' portions of Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which are offensive. Such a procedure is authorized under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which permits a court to strike from any pleading matter which is impertinent or scandalous. See Hohensee v. Watson, 188 F.Supp. 941 (,.D.Pa.M 1959). As the NRC looks to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in conducting-the agency's proceedings, this course of conduct is proper. C1 Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and 5 4
Throughout the Petition Saginaw also makes gra-tuitous and unsupported statements which are derogatory of _
Licensee in regard-to such areas as QA/QC performance, 4
Consumer Powers' financial,. technical and mane.gerial competence 4
and' Licensee's conduct in past hearings (Paragraphs 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23). Petitioner resorts to vicious ad hominem attacks upon License -- attacks which have their only bases -in myth and outdated information -- rather than
- specify' proper subjectLareas which have a basis in fact.
". < j
' ' ' ~
, , _ __ - ^ 2
.., . , ~, ~ ~ '
J-
' ~ " ~
_.m
^
t-t '
i-
~
f ,
'These comments should also be stricken under the authorities ;,
[ ' cited'above.
! C. Other Matters
- In several instances Saginaw's contentions attempt ;
i to raise subject. areas in a very vague fashion. Paragraphs i 16 and 17 complain.of aLdefective'ACRS report, Paragraph 25 l l
maintains that Licenseee's Environmental Report is invalid for certain' reasons;and Paragraph:33 alludes to questions pro-1 pounded to Consumers Power by the NRC Staff on May 22, 1978.
.As discussed briafly in Section II B, Saginaw attempts to j; , raise the subject areas of Licensee's QA/QC performance as well as'its-financial and managerial qualifications in 1 - Parag'raphs /11-14, 21 and 23.
-Petitioner's. contentions are not only so vague that they cannot withstand scrutiny by the Licensing Board, but they are also-based,' apparently, upon the state of facts that existed at the. construction permit ~ stage of~this proceeding.
Without ' discussing' whether or .not these areas, if well pled, y i
zwould be proper for consideration, it is clear that'as presently formulated!these contentions are based on factors'not pertinent
.to the operating license: proceeding.
iSaginaw's: contentions'concerning the Dow Lic ensee
. contracts (Petition, 1's 18, . 22, 24) are also improper,-as 1
P g
t t"- 2 '\
A "- *** -r *
, f '- t! '
______._-m -
=_ __
$ _f f .
- they are based upon afstate of facts which does not exist.
Contrary.to Petitioner's assertions, Dow is not considering rejecting:further involvement in the project. In a press release date June 9, 1978, Dow and Licenseee announced that a tentative agreement hbt been reached on renegotiated con-4 tracts involving _the Midland Plant. 'The contracts have been
- signed by Dow and will'be presented.to Licensee's Executive Committee for approval on. June 21, 1978. In view of,these developments, Saginaw's statements are completely untrue and have no relevance to the operating license hearing.
The only contentions in Saginaw's. Petition which have not _yet- been dealt with involve the need for the power to be produced by..the Midland Plant, an area which includes such things as energy conservation and reserve margins (Petition, t's 26-29). Need for' power is a proper area for _
^
consideration at the operating license stage, but only'to the extent that changed or additional.information developed since
~
the construction permit stage is involved, 10 C.F.R. 5551.21,
- 51. 23 (e) , 51. 26 (a) . ~ To the extent that Saginaw's Petition -
alleges'new or changed information, it asserts a proper subject. area.upon which contentions may later be submitted. .
1 4
-a ,
.. ,s
. t
'III. PETITIONERfIMPROPERLY SETS "FORTH SOME " RESERVATIONS" .3 Infa section entitled " Reservations," Saginaw states thatL"this petition to intervene if-filed' subject to the
- following reservations..." (Petition, 19) . Leaving aside the
~
question of the propriety of this procedure, Licensee objects to the substance of several of the attempted. reservations.
First, Saginaw states that it intends to' seek attorneys' fees and costs and that the failure to grant such fees and cost: "may affect Petitioner's ability to partici-pate," (Petition, 19a). In view of the fact that the Commission has issued a definitive policy statement which makes clear that-the NRC will not give financial assistance to intervenors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Financial Assistance to Partici-1 pants in Commission Proceedings), CLI- 76-23, 4 NRC 494 (1976),
-9 and the fact that an Appeal Board has applied that. rule to deny. financial assistance in a previous Midland Plant case involving Saginaw's current counsel, Consumers Power Co.
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-395, 5 NRC 772 (1977),
there.is no basis for Petitioner to seek attorneys' fees and-
- costs in-the instant proceeding. Such a motion could only be considered frivolous and a waste of the time and resources of the Licensing-Board.- Additionally, Saginaw must be
. prepared to participate in this proceeding without Commission s
s g.,, ,. .w_.
7
.t $* '
~
r , .n l, .
so i ,
assistance';'an intervenor'is not permitted:to step in and.
Lout lof participation'in a particular issue at will, Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating -
.-Plant,' Units 1 and [2) ,. ALAB-288, 2 NRCJ 390 - (1975) .
- ;Saginaw also states
- as a reservation thatlit_
. intends to- amend its contentions :from time to time (Petition, . :l 1
1 9b)... Consumers, Power recognizes that contentions may be
~
i! : amended,-but' reminds-Petitioner that this may be done only ~ -
l E . .
in'accordance-with NRC rules ~. After a specified point in
]
.j ,
j the proceedings; contentions may.be amended "only with
- i. approval of the presiding: officer,~ based on a balancing of ,
I
[certain]ifactors...." 10 C.F.R. S2. 714 (a) (3) .
l
~
.Petitionerialso alleges a "right.to'. participate'by
. offering evidence, cross-examining ~ witnesses and seeking i n
i' discovery" in connection.with contentions of other parties- - '
l- .orlof the' Licensing Board "iniaccordance with well established f- principles of' law" (Petition', 1 9d) . While the 'right to i
- cross-examine ~as'to contentions of another party was .-
e stablished in. Northern. States Power Co.'(Prairie' Island 1-
. Nuclear l Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-75-1, l' NRC 1,
- 8 57 =.(19 74) , - the cases. cited by Saginaw, the' Appeal Board
' expressly.statedithat it was not' holding that the right wen- -
F . .
c, isolfar as to, authorize'one intervenor to introduce' affirmative
~i i
[
a 9
- - 7 ., ,
. , . - . . a . . . ..-.a-, -- . . _ .- .. . -.-..a._-.. . .a
.~2-.. --- . - - - . .w. . .
16- ,
~,
- _ evidence-with regard to issues place in contest by another party. "On suchlan issue, in order to do more than engage.in J
cross-examination of the witnesses _ called by other parties, the intervenor must seek and obtain leave of the Licensing Board to amend his intervention petition to assert the issue p '
on his own behalf," Prairie Island, ALAB-244, supra at 869 n.-17. See also Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) , ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383 (1976). No decisions authorizing a right to discovery in such situations have been found. Similarly, no cases which permit any of
.the activities mentioned by Saginaw in the context of issues raised by the Licensing Board have been discovered.
Finally, Consumers Power questions Saginaw's Reservation (e) which attempts to reserve "the right to I
present legal arguments" on various subjects, including the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act (Petition, 1 9e). d If Petitioner has contentions on these issues it should set I
them forth specifically as such, rather than disguising them as " reservations."-_Furthermore, Petitioner cannot challenge -
the validity of NRC regulations in this proceeding, but must
. proceed under: the rules established in 10 C.F.R. S2.758, which_Saginaw has r.ot'done in its Petition. See, e.g.,
l Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 '
and 2) , LBP-76-38, 4 NRC' 435' (1976) .
As for the questions of the "comingling of promotional and regulatory responsibilities i
~
r W - y y -- -P, 1 M
~~ '
, . ~ ___ _
_ . . ~ . . - ~ _ _ . . . _ , . . -_ _ . .
~
4 , , _
-- '1
_17_. ,
l 1
l
-in.the NRC" and the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson I
l
-Act,'itL . is clear that. Petitioner is bringing them to the wrong j H
forum. See Wisconsin' Electric Power Co.'(Point Beach Nuclear )
- 1 Plant, Unit. 2) , ALAB-137,6
- AEC 491, 518 (1973) ; cf. Detroit ' -
'l a
' Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi; Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2) , . I ALAB-475, 7 NRC (May.9, 1978).
- IV. CONCLUSION-
.For the reasons set forth above Consumers Power believesLthat Saginaw has not properly set.forth its interest
^
in the proceeding and therefore reqeusts that the. Licensing Board: deny the Petition to intervene or require Saginaw to !
I amend it so as to state Petitioner's interest with particularity.
Alternatively,.'the Licensing Board must limit Saginaw's I i - participation, under the authority of 10 C.F.R. 52.714 (f) ,
j
- Lto the subject area (s) described by Petitioner which are appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and in which J
. Saginaw has made a proper showing of specificity pursuant to j 52.714 (a) (2) . -Lastly, Licensee requests that those-portions of~
, . the Petition specified.above be stricken as impertinent.
@O bYh L ng Michael I.--Miller t.
l%
- Martha E. Gibbs-Two of the Attorneys for-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY cIsham,' Lincoln-&.Beale One,First National: Plaza 42nd Floor-
- Chicago,fIL' '60603-(312)i786-7500. -
. 1
'~ ~ '
June 19,-!1975-
% y ) e a 4,.gy, ,k,-, ,,,3,, a
.. ~ - .
. , , - a .: . , . . + . v .- .
=---. -- - - -
~
y %
S*'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' 5
)
In the Matter.Of.- )~
')
t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket'Nos. 50-329'
~
.)50-030 (Midland Plant, Units .1, and -. 2) )
)
DESIGNATION-OF. PERSONS UPON WHOM~ SERVICE SHALL BE MADE Consumers Power Company, pursuant-to 10 C.F.R.
- SS2.708 (e) . and : 2.712 (b) , designates the following- persons to be served'on its behalf with copies of all papers filed in.the above-captioned proceeding:
Judd L'. . Bacon, Erq.
Consumers Power Company 4
212 West-Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan .49201 j
' Michael I.- Miller, Esq.
Martha.E. Gibbs,-Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale-One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60C03' "
Ch k -
la (
Martha E. Gibbs "
One of the. Attorney.s'for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First-National Plaza '
Suite'4200 Chicago,'IllinoisJ_60603
. (312) 786-7500
, ~ June ..'19, 1978' '
l
- 5 ) r e 4 -r- -*w s- e- e 4
. . : .= _ . . . . . . - ..:---.- :- - * '
s
- p. _ Q;.
, . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-Beforecthe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -j3
(,1;q
}-
'In the Matter Of- )
) 7
- CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ~ .) Docket Nos. 50-329
. ) 50-330 (Midland Plant, . Units 'l and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE d
.I hereby certify that copies of " Answer of Consumers Power Company To Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group's Petition For~: Leave To-Intervene," " Answer Of Consumers Power Company To-Petition Of The Attorney General Of ThefState of_ Michigan For Leave to Intervene," " Notice Of Appearance'Of Michael I. Miller,"
" Notice Of Appearance Of/ Ronald G. Zamarin," " Notice Of
. Appearance Of Martha E. Gibbs," " Notice Of Appearance Of i
Judd L. Bacon," and " Designation Of Persons-Upon Whom Service Shall Be Made,".'in the above-captioned proceeding have been 1
t served upon-the following.by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first _
class, postage prepaid,'this 19th day of June, 1978:
Ivan'W. Smith, Esq. Ms. Mary'Sinclair Atomic; Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U.S. Nucler.r: Regulatory' Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 ;
Washington, D.C. 20555 l Colleen'P. Woodhead, Esq.
Mr. Lester'Kornblith,JJr. Counsel ~ for the NRC Staff-Atomic 1 Safety and-Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryJCommission mission !
Washington,fD. .C. .20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 l
5' s . %
-w-
-. . . - ~ . . 2 -
q y
~
- ~ "
+
Dr.. Frederick P..Cowan JAtomic' Safety.and Licensing-
=6152.N. Verde. Trail Board' Panel Apt. B-225 .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-Boca'Raton,. Florida 33433 mission l Washington, D. C. 20555
- Frank J. Kelley, Esq. . _
. Atomic Safety and. Licensing.
' Attorney General of-the. State of . Appeal. Panel Michigan U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory _
Stewart H. Freeman, Esq.- Commission d
. Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20555 Gregory T. . Taylor, Esq.
Assistant Attorney. General Mr. C. R. Stephens Environmental Protection Division . Chief, Docketing and 720 Law Building- Service Section Lansing, Michigan. 48913 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Myron M. Cherry,'Esq. Commission-1 IBM Plaza Washington, D'. C. 20555 Suite 4501.
Chicago, Illinois 60611
/1
,Q^
f!
kJ OI % ( S id?)
Martha E. Eibbs.
One of the Attorneys for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE *
- One'First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago,. Illinois 60603' (312)786-7500 June 19, 1978 -
u