ML19331A368

Discusses Intervenors' Motions & Positions Re Rescinding of Site Const Exemption,Prohibiting Further Component Mfg & Procurement,Application Dismissal,Certification Questions, Calvert Cliffs Case Effects & Environ Considerations

ML19331A368
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs, Midland
Issue date:	08/20/1971
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007160928
Download: ML19331A368 (2)

Text

1..- _ . _ . . . . . _

P21D. &11I11, fjA EU44 3 3

/ c e7 31YRON 3I. CHERRY ^

/ CUITE 1t33 nos x nut IEAHDOHN STREET p S D00XEiEO C) O D cu CAGO. II.MNots 00602 g

E AUG241971

• I -O r qlt It x. I L) 1 S

ome n. smm rew reinr:

'I August 20, 1971 f( i AUG 251971 *

-j es  !

8""

t)D-~

-  ?

a.

T '

'b \r/a 3 "3-ll$"hy?"

- am . s-j Arthur W. LIurphy, Esq. , Chairman ' N ' ! ~ ", .6 O 'j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board q 1.h Columbia University Schocl of Law Box 38, 435 West 11Gth Street New York, New York 10027 In the AIntter of Consumers Power Company LIidland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dochets Nos. 50-320 and 50-330

Dear hIr. Chairman:

There is now pending before the Board a hiotion of the Saginaw Inter-venors to require a rescinding of the exemption for site construction and to prohibit further procurement and manufacture of components for the proposed facility. The Alapleton Intervenors and the Environmental Defense Fund have joined in this hiotion.

There is also pending before the Board a hiotion of the Alapleton Inter-venors to dismiss the Application upon certain grounds, and the Saginaw Inter-venors have joined in this hiotion.

In addition, there are questions concerning certification, the effects of the Calvert Cliffs case, and environmental policy considerations. Notwithstanding the pendency of these hiotions, and in an effort in good faith to move the proceed-ings to a conclusion (without, however, prejudicing their legal position), the Saginaw Intervenors filed on August 10, 1971 a long letter with the Board setting forth their position as to the legal issues to be considered and requesting the initiation of informal discovery on environmental matters.

Saginaw Intervenors believe that the law requires a detailed environmen-tal statement in advance of restricting Intervenors' rights to discovery; however, Intervenors were by their letter of August 10,1971 willing to pursue informal l methods in an effort to bring these proceedings along in an orderly fashion.

80071so @ p g

, <4 ,

. - - .~. -. - . .- ~ .

m -

Arthur W. Alurphy, E .

page 2 August 20, 1971 By letter dated August 18, 1971, Applicant has filed a hiotion requesting that all environmental discovery motions be filed by September 7,1971. Not only is Applicant's suggestion of a time limit tmrcasonable, the very fact that Applicarit did not address itself to the legal issues now pending, that Applicant ignored the pendency of certain blotions, and also that Applicant, does not opt to pursue environ-mental discovery informally, suggests to us, as it should to the Board, that Appil-cant by intention, negligence, or ineptndss is causing and contributing to a further delay of these proceedings.

hIoreover, the Calvert Cliffs decision makes clear that Applicant has not yet completed its " application," and by its counscl's own admission, Applicant is preparing to amend the PSAR at this moment. There can be no requirement to join issue now before Applicant has taken an environmental position. Accordingly, we suggested an informal approach because it seemed fair to all sides.

We do not see how any time limit can now be placed upon discovery, parti-cularly since we have heard no word from the Regulatory Staff as to how long the required NEPA review will take.

}

We urge the Board to ignore Applicant's blotion filed under date of August 18, 1971, to issue prompt' rulings, to the extent possible, upon Intervenors' Alotions now pending, and to order the parties to begin discovery and performance in accordance with the suggestions of our earlier letter. Otherwise, Intervenors will reluctantly be in the position of having to move the Board for a fair and reasonable time to produce discovery motions on environmental matters after the Regulatory Staff has completed its work.

Alternatively (but without agreeing to a cut-off date), if Applicant wishes to proceed " formally," we ask the Board to order the parties to produce the documents listed in our letter of August 10, 1971.

Respectfully,

/,[h b # L' -

Alfon bl. Cherry 8 Attorney for Intervenors hih1C:mk cc: ASLB hicmbers Secretary, Atomic Energy Commission All Counsel of Record