ML19318D154: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:..
{{#Wiki_filter:..
__ _,.
          .
                            .                                                              .
4          Cockmo usunc        -                                knoI 1- - - - - -fc.N1N4SO 2
4          Cockmo usunc        -                                knoI 1- - - - - -fc.N1N4SO 2
     . 6-    Jl.JN og.
     . 6-    Jl.JN og.
Line 33: Line 30:
   /      In support of this motion, CEE states:
   /      In support of this motion, CEE states:
k
k
: 1. There is no warrant in the rules of the Commission which can be construed to give DE any days in which to ponder over whether or not it will withdraw its application. This is the same                      l application about which it has made clear it has no intention to prosecute in public press releases starting cancellation of the Units 2 and 3 by order of DE's Board of Directors. Such unwar-ranted delays in in filing a withdrawal are not providing CEE equal protection, since we understand we only have eight (8) days (as lay persons, who must act without counsel--a point we protest) in which to respond to any DE move or motion.                It is obvious from DE's press releases that its position is already established and that there would be no undue hardship on that fine legal staff to put its already-decided-on action plan into writing in less than ten                      l (10) days. This delaying tactic being supported by the Staff hin-ders and deprives CEE in its ability to respond to the application, because it holds us in a state of " legal limbo" and drains our energies and limited resources. It is also unfair to other groups who .ay wish'to file late petitions to intervene, a case we would welcome, since the Staff seems to think there is no urgency in go
: 1. There is no warrant in the rules of the Commission which can be construed to give DE any days in which to ponder over whether or not it will withdraw its application. This is the same                      l application about which it has made clear it has no intention to prosecute in public press releases starting cancellation of the Units 2 and 3 by order of DE's Board of Directors. Such unwar-ranted delays in in filing a withdrawal are not providing CEE equal protection, since we understand we only have eight (8) days (as lay persons, who must act without counsel--a point we protest) in which to respond to any DE move or motion.                It is obvious from DE's press releases that its position is already established and that there would be no undue hardship on that fine legal staff to put its already-decided-on action plan into writing in less than ten                      l (10) days. This delaying tactic being supported by the Staff hin-ders and deprives CEE in its ability to respond to the application, because it holds us in a state of " legal limbo" and drains our energies and limited resources. It is also unfair to other groups who .ay wish'to file late petitions to intervene, a case we would welcome, since the Staff seems to think there is no urgency in go O $
'
O $
80070800os                                                                  j0
80070800os                                                                  j0


                                                                                          .          .  .-
              ,
          . .
          -
        .
,
,  ,            this Docket. We all should know what it appears DE already knows:
,  ,            this Docket. We all should know what it appears DE already knows:
that it wants to not move forward with the Proposed Plants, as defined in the original application.      Therefore, the 10-day time. limit is sufficient for DE to render in writing its well-thought-out plans. It is unfair for CEE and others to not know if we must                      .
that it wants to not move forward with the Proposed Plants, as defined in the original application.      Therefore, the 10-day time. limit is sufficient for DE to render in writing its well-thought-out plans. It is unfair for CEE and others to not know if we must                      .
Line 49: Line 38:
: 3. CEE has rights in this proceeding, and it wants DE to answer CEE's Petition to Intervene, because we believe that we could show that DE should be denied, even if DE should be allowed, unfairly, extended days to give an affirmative answer to its de-sire to quit delaying these proceedings.                  Delay by DE only increases the cost on any plant it will build in its system, and every rate payer, including CEE is harmed for his lifetime; but no harm is done to DE, who just passes _on all its costs to the taxpayers.
: 3. CEE has rights in this proceeding, and it wants DE to answer CEE's Petition to Intervene, because we believe that we could show that DE should be denied, even if DE should be allowed, unfairly, extended days to give an affirmative answer to its de-sire to quit delaying these proceedings.                  Delay by DE only increases the cost on any plant it will build in its system, and every rate payer, including CEE is harmed for his lifetime; but no harm is done to DE, who just passes _on all its costs to the taxpayers.
If the Regulatory Staff's position is adopted, that means that DE will have the benefit of its own, untested representations or premises, and only if it answers the Petition to Intervene can
If the Regulatory Staff's position is adopted, that means that DE will have the benefit of its own, untested representations or premises, and only if it answers the Petition to Intervene can
  -
       .          an adequate evaluation be made of DE's decision, if it is other than to withdraw the application.
       .          an adequate evaluation be made of DE's decision, if it is other than to withdraw the application.
: 4. The petition should be dismissed for more reasons, even if DE decides to push forward, because, in its press releases, DE unequivocally and irrevocably states that the application now on file is not the application DE will want to prosecute. This fact is true.now or in 60 days, so why delay? The Regulatory
: 4. The petition should be dismissed for more reasons, even if DE decides to push forward, because, in its press releases, DE unequivocally and irrevocably states that the application now on file is not the application DE will want to prosecute. This fact is true.now or in 60 days, so why delay? The Regulatory Staff has not-addressed this question and, accordingly, even if DE is given an unjustified delay, DE will be deciding to move
                .
Staff has not-addressed this question and, accordingly, even if DE is given an unjustified delay, DE will be deciding to move
;
;
forward on an application it has admitted is not going to be i                  prosecuted by DE.
forward on an application it has admitted is not going to be i                  prosecuted by DE.
Line 59: Line 45:
: 5. The NRC and DE appear to be wanting to make some kind of secret and behind-closed-door arrangements to delay consideration of the design, safety, and environmental' aspects, while attempt-ing to illegally approve the site for a nuclear plant, such as a
: 5. The NRC and DE appear to be wanting to make some kind of secret and behind-closed-door arrangements to delay consideration of the design, safety, and environmental' aspects, while attempt-ing to illegally approve the site for a nuclear plant, such as a
   -(              sodium-cooled fast-breeder, for example. They may even be consider-
   -(              sodium-cooled fast-breeder, for example. They may even be consider-
                                                      .                                        _
_        _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . -      . . _ _ _.        . _ .


_.                    ,_.            _  _                            __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _  .
      ,
        *'
(                                                                                                  ,
(                                                                                                  ,
ing putting a fuel reprocessing plant on the site, in addition to
ing putting a fuel reprocessing plant on the site, in addition to a nuclear plant. It is impossible to tell what they are up to.
    .
a nuclear plant. It is impossible to tell what they are up to.
There is no warrant for such an arrangement, and we are sure that it is bureaucratic dishonesty, to which the Commission would not want to be party, or even encourage;
There is no warrant for such an arrangement, and we are sure that it is bureaucratic dishonesty, to which the Commission would not want to be party, or even encourage;
,
: 6. Therefore, for.the above reasons, CEE requests that DE be compelled to withdraw its application or answer the current Petition to Intervene within ten days. Surely, this is not an undue burden, since.we lay people must put it all together in fiv'e days--hardly a situation a reasonable person would consider fair, under the concept of equal protection of the law and due process.
                                                                                                            .
: 6. Therefore, for.the above reasons, CEE requests that
-
DE be compelled to withdraw its application or answer the current Petition to Intervene within ten days. Surely, this is not an undue burden, since.we lay people must put it all together in fiv'e days--hardly a situation a reasonable person would consider fair, under the concept of equal protection of the law and due process.
B. Motion for Copies of the Rules and Law we will be Tested by and Sub3ected to Inasmuch as the Commission has refused ever to acknowledge citizens' reque -    'er copies of the Rules of the Commission filed by letter prir    , cne deadline of filing intervention petitions,
B. Motion for Copies of the Rules and Law we will be Tested by and Sub3ected to Inasmuch as the Commission has refused ever to acknowledge citizens' reque -    'er copies of the Rules of the Commission filed by letter prir    , cne deadline of filing intervention petitions,
   .(A-        we hereby move that the Commission direct the Staf f or other ap-propriate person, persons, or agency to send us immediately a readable copy of the Laws and Rules SEE will be subjected to and be tested by during these proceedings. If it requires an attorney to read such Rules with understanding, we hereby move that the Commission provide CEE with funds which we can use to retain counsel in this Docket and its subsequent legal followings and procedures, redresses, and remedies.
   .(A-        we hereby move that the Commission direct the Staf f or other ap-propriate person, persons, or agency to send us immediately a readable copy of the Laws and Rules SEE will be subjected to and be tested by during these proceedings. If it requires an attorney to read such Rules with understanding, we hereby move that the Commission provide CEE with funds which we can use to retain counsel in this Docket and its subsequent legal followings and procedures, redresses, and remedies.
                                                                                                        -
i Respectfully submitted, Citizens for Energy and Employment 4
i Respectfully submitted, Citizens for Energy and Employment 4
(CEE)
(CEE)
Dated this 2      day of      1980.
Dated this 2      day of      1980.
,
  .
    ,
                                               = . .
                                               = . .
                                                                                                                .-


__
s ..*
s ..*
  .*.      .* '
    *
/
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of            )
                                                                                          .
In the Matter of            )
Detroit Edison              )    Docket Nos. 50-    and 50 -
Detroit Edison              )    Docket Nos. 50-    and 50 -
                                             )
                                             )

Revision as of 06:58, 1 February 2020

Motion to Compel Withdrawal of Application Due to Unwarranted Delays.Requests Rules & Regulations That Will Govern Proceeding & Necessary Funds to Retain Legal Counsel. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19318D154
Person / Time
Site: 05000452, 05000453
Issue date: 06/02/1980
From: Asperger R
CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8007080008
Download: ML19318D154 (4)
v • d • e


Text

..

4 Cockmo usunc - knoI 1- - - - - -fc.N1N4SO 2

. 6- Jl.JN og.

3 01980 > -j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Docketing & 3,;g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMMISSION g 8 m ch ... .

r f 16 y "'

Before the Cor.nission N lm

~..

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50- and 50-Detroit Edison ) '

)

Greenwood Units 2 and 3 )

)

CEE's MOTION TO COMPEL DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO WITHDRAW ITS APPLICATION, AND FOR RELIEF IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF THE RULES hT APS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW A. Motion to Withdraw Application After Notice of Hearings CEE moves that the NRC promptly order that within ten (10) days, Detroit Edison Co m pany (DE) withdraw its application.

/ In support of this motion, CEE states:

k

1. There is no warrant in the rules of the Commission which can be construed to give DE any days in which to ponder over whether or not it will withdraw its application. This is the same l application about which it has made clear it has no intention to prosecute in public press releases starting cancellation of the Units 2 and 3 by order of DE's Board of Directors. Such unwar-ranted delays in in filing a withdrawal are not providing CEE equal protection, since we understand we only have eight (8) days (as lay persons, who must act without counsel--a point we protest) in which to respond to any DE move or motion. It is obvious from DE's press releases that its position is already established and that there would be no undue hardship on that fine legal staff to put its already-decided-on action plan into writing in less than ten l (10) days. This delaying tactic being supported by the Staff hin-ders and deprives CEE in its ability to respond to the application, because it holds us in a state of " legal limbo" and drains our energies and limited resources. It is also unfair to other groups who .ay wish'to file late petitions to intervene, a case we would welcome, since the Staff seems to think there is no urgency in go O $

80070800os j0

, , this Docket. We all should know what it appears DE already knows:

that it wants to not move forward with the Proposed Plants, as defined in the original application. Therefore, the 10-day time. limit is sufficient for DE to render in writing its well-thought-out plans. It is unfair for CEE and others to not know if we must .

fight.

3. CEE has rights in this proceeding, and it wants DE to answer CEE's Petition to Intervene, because we believe that we could show that DE should be denied, even if DE should be allowed, unfairly, extended days to give an affirmative answer to its de-sire to quit delaying these proceedings. Delay by DE only increases the cost on any plant it will build in its system, and every rate payer, including CEE is harmed for his lifetime; but no harm is done to DE, who just passes _on all its costs to the taxpayers.

If the Regulatory Staff's position is adopted, that means that DE will have the benefit of its own, untested representations or premises, and only if it answers the Petition to Intervene can

. an adequate evaluation be made of DE's decision, if it is other than to withdraw the application.

4. The petition should be dismissed for more reasons, even if DE decides to push forward, because, in its press releases, DE unequivocally and irrevocably states that the application now on file is not the application DE will want to prosecute. This fact is true.now or in 60 days, so why delay? The Regulatory Staff has not-addressed this question and, accordingly, even if DE is given an unjustified delay, DE will be deciding to move

forward on an application it has admitted is not going to be i prosecuted by DE.

i

5. The NRC and DE appear to be wanting to make some kind of secret and behind-closed-door arrangements to delay consideration of the design, safety, and environmental' aspects, while attempt-ing to illegally approve the site for a nuclear plant, such as a

-( sodium-cooled fast-breeder, for example. They may even be consider-

( ,

ing putting a fuel reprocessing plant on the site, in addition to a nuclear plant. It is impossible to tell what they are up to.

There is no warrant for such an arrangement, and we are sure that it is bureaucratic dishonesty, to which the Commission would not want to be party, or even encourage;

6. Therefore, for.the above reasons, CEE requests that DE be compelled to withdraw its application or answer the current Petition to Intervene within ten days. Surely, this is not an undue burden, since.we lay people must put it all together in fiv'e days--hardly a situation a reasonable person would consider fair, under the concept of equal protection of the law and due process.

B. Motion for Copies of the Rules and Law we will be Tested by and Sub3ected to Inasmuch as the Commission has refused ever to acknowledge citizens' reque - 'er copies of the Rules of the Commission filed by letter prir , cne deadline of filing intervention petitions,

.(A- we hereby move that the Commission direct the Staf f or other ap-propriate person, persons, or agency to send us immediately a readable copy of the Laws and Rules SEE will be subjected to and be tested by during these proceedings. If it requires an attorney to read such Rules with understanding, we hereby move that the Commission provide CEE with funds which we can use to retain counsel in this Docket and its subsequent legal followings and procedures, redresses, and remedies.

i Respectfully submitted, Citizens for Energy and Employment 4

(CEE)

Dated this 2 day of 1980.

= . .

s ..*

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of )

Detroit Edison ) Docket Nos. 50- and 50 -

)

Greenwood Units 2 and 3 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CEE's Motion to Compel Detroit Edison Company to Withdraw its Application, and for Relief in th.e Form of Copies of the Rules we are Expected to Follow, dated -

E, 1980, has been served on first-class theair-mail, or following postage by deposit in the United prepaird, this Sta[*es 2.* daymail, of Eaq', 1980.

M Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Detroit Edison Co.

Route # 1 2000 Edison Office Building

(. Freeland, Michigan 48623 Detroit, Michigan 48200 Atomic Safety and Licensing i Appeal Board M b*h U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 80.S ep /6 L Mr. N. H. Goodrich, Chairman M , 71 79000 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, DC 20545 l Mr. Paul C. Bender, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n. RobeYt G. Aspe rge r ,'

Washington, DC 20545 Member authorized to a c in CEE's behalf.

Mr. Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Branch.

Office of the Secretary of the Comm'n.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20545 Mr. David E. Kartalia, Esc. If G1%

office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20545

[

Michigan Public Service Commission  !

Law Building  !

Lansing, Michigan 48913

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19318D154&oldid=2367274"