ML20100F673

Considers Refs to Performance of Bechtel in ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision LBP-85-2 Unwarranted.Bechtel Was Not Party to Proceeding.Comments on Aslab 850313 Order Re LBP-85-2 Offered.Svc List Encl

ML20100F673
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/01/1985
From:	Charnoff G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Moore T, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#285-359 LBP-85-02, LBP-85-2, OL, OM, NUDOCS 8504040396
Download: ML20100F673 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ______

i SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs &gJggyVBRIDGE A p.mTo.teswin or paortssion.L comovfph>=s

' 1800 M STREET, N. W.

tettcopism WASHINGTON. D, o $. 20038e -3 A11 :05 . . . . . . . . .

telex

_ . .s L .s.,

EccNS.5$5N ***" r *'^~~

$$ANCN TELtowows OERALD CHARNOFF P.C. .aoat .aa.,o.a April 1, 1985 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

(Docket Nos. 50-329 OL&OM and 50-330 OL&OM)

Dear Chairman Rosenthal and Administrative Judge Moore:

On behalf of Bechtel Power Corporation ("Bechtel"), we i

have reviewed the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision, dated January 23, 1985 (LBP-8 5-2) . It makes a number of references to the performance of Bechtel at Midland which, in our view, were unwarranted, particularly because Bechtel was not a party to the proceeding. We have also reviewed the Order of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board, dated March 13, 1985, which invites the parties to comment on two issues set out therein by April 1, 1985. While, as noted above, Bechtel has been a nonparty, it nevertheless has an obvious interest in at least the second issue set out in your March 13, 1985 Order, and accordingly respectfully requests that you consider these comments.

Because of the Midland project's deactivated status, we agree with the Appeal Board's expressed doubt that LBP-85-2 serves "...any useful purpose, let alone the public interest,"

and'we agree that Appeal Board review, at this time, is not necessary and perhaps would be a misuse of public resources.

Accordingly, the better course is to continue the matter under review, subject'to reopening in light of then-current information, if and when the project is reactivated.

I EP&W!!8g, {

PDR [  ;

J

O i

SHAw, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE a PAmfNgasmo eNCLUDiNO PROFESS +0NAL COR*OmaT:ONS Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore, Administrative Judge Page Two April 1, 1985 We are seriously concerned about the suggestion in your March 13, 1985 Order that it might be appropriate to dismiss Consumers' operating license application for Midland at this time. The project now has been deactivated, but it has not been cancelled. Indeed, Consumers has undertaken to main-tain the construction site and the equipment thereon in a condition which would allow restart of work, if that decision is later made, under NRC's continuing oversight. Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to now compel dismissal of the application and it could irreparably harm any later attempts to complete the Midland plant.

There are a number of plants, like Midland, whose construction has been suspended, but which may yet be completed.

Depending on growth in demand for electric power, and resolu-tion of outstanding regulatory problems, several of these units may be economically reactivated. Termination of their construction permits or dismissal of operating license applications could increase substantially both the cost and schedule of completing many of these plants. Accordingly, we submit that a precedent of compelling dismissal of the operating license application should not be established at Midland, or similar plants, where the decision to cancel has not been taken. The public interest would be better served, we believe, by placing the Midland operating license applic-ation in suspension until a final decision is made to complete the facility or to abandon it as a nuclear unit.

Resp tful submi ted, I

i Ge ald Charnoff 9/

cc: OM/OL Service List

4 i OM/0L SERVICE LIST Mr Frank J Kelley Atomic Safety & Licensin5 Attorney General of the Appeal Board State of Michigan U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms Carole Steinberg Washington, DC 20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Mr C R Stephens (3) 720 Law Building Chief, Docketing & Services Lansing, MI 48913 .

U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 Mr Myron M Cherry, Esq Suite 3700 Ms Mary sinclair Three First National Plaza 5711 Summerset Street Chicago, IL 60602 Midland, MI 48640 Mr Wendell H Marshall Mr William D Paton, Esq RFD 10 Midland, MI 48640 Counsel for the NRC Staff U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr Charles Bechhoefer, Esq Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board Panel-U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Room E-413 Washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, MD 20014 Ms Barbara Stamaris De Frederick P Cowan 5795 North River Road 6152 N Verde Trail Rt 3 Apt B-125 Freeland, MI 48623 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Dr Jerry Harbour Mr Fred C Williams Atomic Safety & Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Board Panel 1120 connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 840 U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20036 East-West Towers, Room E-454 Bethesda, MD 20014 Mr James E Brunner, Esq Consumers Power Company Mr M I Miller. Esq 212 West Michigan Avenue Isham, Lincoln & Beale Jackson, MI 49201 .

Three First National Plaza 52nd Floor Chicago, IL 60602

6 4

Mr Steve Cadler. Esq Mr John Demeester, Esq 2120 Carter Avenue Dow Chemical Building St Paul. HN $5108 Michigan Division Midland HI 48640 Mr P Robert Brown

' Clark, Klein & Beaumont Ms Lynne Bernabei 1600 First Federal Bldg Government Accountability Project Woodward Ave 1901 Q Screet NW Detroit, MI 48226 Washington, DC 20009 e

6*

e e