ML20126H310

Forwards Attachment a to Applicant Response to J Leithauser Motion & Supporting Brief for Official Notice by Commission

ML20126H310
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	03/31/1981
From:	Steptoe P ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8104080545
Download: ML20126H310 (1)

Text

. .

< ISHAM. LINCOLN &' BEALE

" COUNSELORS AT. LAW

.ONE rimST:NATIONA'. f*LA2 A r FORf?*.ECOMO FLOCA ,

.CMLCAOC,86LINor. SOSO2 m ..NON. m .......<,o ,.c c......

Uus&seth0 TON OFFtCE naO CONNECTICUT MCNVC. N.W.

SusTE 225 eMarch;31, 1981 *";",*jo";*f,8o***,

'. UNITED .*STA'1.ES OF AMERICA 7.NUCLEARTREGUEATORY COMMISSION

.BEFORE~.THE . COMMISSION In the Matter.o.f )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-1550LA

) (Spent Fuel Pool (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)) Expansion)

Dear Commissioners:

Encic,Jed is Attachment A to APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO JOHN LEITHAUSER'S " MOTION AND SUPPORTING BRIEF FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE BY THE COMMISSION" which was filed yester-day. Attachment A was inadvertently not enclosed with our filing. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sin y,

} If 19

//

f P. .

Phi..ip A

eptoe >

I l PPS/kb <

! Enc.

l CC: Service List G

• l

,x <

d b 00mtTO b

Y </ 9., umm gM' M Y%'1 -

APR . 31981

• I l

l ~

n

}fd)(r). r g

t l 2 L_1 M n071993.,,pg w uswe omne

• =h of ne senate.

L - u.5 r

%,!uY cw "m .4  %

% .:s ea e 9 ,,,,

~

d S6 5' '

31o408059'5 g

o,

. :~ ~ ' *.* ; : ; A, p

L ./.:

1 UNITED..STATFS OF AMERICA C W ,, . f. NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION ym ,pp

~ . . ,

I t.t ..t

,- t w. . o '-Before the .Atofic .Safet, and 'Licensinz ~3 card .7: Cl@yyt3. sj:.g qj' - - ~ ~ . . .,.:a

'M Er g

",J In.the Matter.of ) i t ,,.

)

. CONSUMER POWER CO'GANY- ) Dociet No. 50-155

)

(Big Rock ~ Point Euc' lear 71 ant') -)

~.MOTI.ON TO '.3E ' HEARD ON THE NEED 70R 70'/.'ER ISSUE Petitioner, John Leithauser on his own behalf makes the ,

following motions:

To wit, that his brief on the need for power be accepted and accorded the same status as others.

(

/

Petitioner prays that the Board grant his motion for the following reasono:

1) The brief of petitioner on the need for power was received by the Board within the maximum time limits ,

established in contact with other parties. filing. briefs en this questien. Consequently, to . grant petitlener's notion would cauco no delay in the orderly conduct of 1

! these proceedings.

2) Petitlener in his brief has raised questionc not docit with in other briefs cn the questien and thus grant of this motien is necessary fer the establich=en* .

of a comple c record.

3) Tnilure t: prrnt - petitiener's n tien ic r. denial

{

g ATTACEMENT A .

t)o, f, v' ' jc . . .-)

t

% , i' ,.>

e c),

( e Y A ,) . f (f'

~

.* Am- o-- ~ . ,n , -,

2 .-

• 2 --

( of pe.titioner.'s .right to protect . property; interest acquired on hisJLerafin raddressKby hisrrecent; marriage on Tebruary 16, 1980 Cin athatlit 'is=cgnired that all parties who have substantial /in.terests .be : allowed to protect them in c.djucation).

4) Although-this. peti'ti-oner. failed to meet the original deadline,.it was;because of a. misinterpretation. When petitlener discovered on' March 10, 1980 that briefs must

, have hen filed by 'that date, petitioner by centacting )

Janice McCre by te'lephone and sending a datagram to the Board, expressed obvious and sufficient desire to protect his rights through the use of administrative adjudication. >

- 5) If the Board were to rule that petitlener must L have filed within the minimum time limits established by the Board, it would be clearly unfiir where others have been allowed to ecnform to the maximum time limits established, even though petitioner filed no earlier motions for extension et time. This is so because the need for establichment of a ecmplete record, applied retrospectively, requires that the Board allow reasonabic informality in these proceedings, so 1cng as it does not fundamentally i.nterfere with the orderly conduct of those proceedings. Thus -

re ;recycetively, the Scard is obligated to hear petitlener as he has conformed to the minimum procedural requirecents, '

has substantial property interests to be protected and has b h I

. . ~ _ . - _ . _ _ . _

t * .

. raised contentions not -found :in other briefs.

6) The purpose of . intervention _is to avoid delay, cir- l cuitry of actions and a multipliciity 'of suits.  :

It.is further a . device to allow parties ~ interested in the subject .

matter to adjust the matter in one instead.of several actions. If petitioner's motion is not granted, he willy-have .no recourse but to seek court review of the Consti -

tutional issues raised, .in order to protect his interests. .

It is thus to the advantage 'of all parties concerned to ,

hear the issues raised in: petitioner's brief on the Need fer Power issue.

For 211 of the above reascns . petitioner requests that ,

the Board grant his Motion to be heard.

{

Respectfil' submitted, dt q -

John A. leithause 350 Routo One .

Levering, MI h9755 March.12, 1980 .

4 e

' " * * *" " ev

• e. # - ,..,,,y ,