|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 1991-02-26
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20084J6111984-05-0404 May 1984 Responds Opposing Sinclair 840419 Motion to Request Caseload Forecast Panel Evaluate New Const Completion Schedule.Aslb Should Deny Request for Relief Contained in Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084H2581984-05-0202 May 1984 Memorandum in Opposition to Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 840417 Petition for Review.Gap Policy on Disclosures to Press Rules Out Genuine Claim That Affidavits Were to Be Maintained in Total Confidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N6481984-04-17017 April 1984 Petition for Review of Aslab 840330 Decision & Order ALAB-764 Re Subpoenas Directed to Govt Accountability Project.Aslab Erroneous Re Important Questions of Law & Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M9821984-03-30030 March 1984 Response to B Stamiris 840304 New Contention Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators.Bases in Support of Contention Clarified.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079M6481984-01-23023 January 1984 Request for Leave to File Encl Corrected Copies of Applicant 831209 Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Govt Accountability Project.Table of Contents & Table of Authorities Inadvertently Omitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082U0311983-12-0909 December 1983 Memorandum Opposing Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 831021 Appeal of ASLB Order Granting Util Motion to Depose Gap Witnesses.First Amend Argument Inapplicable Since Affiant Identity Will Not Be Disclosed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1341983-11-22022 November 1983 Request for Extension Until 831209 to File Brief Opposing Appeal of Govt Accountability Project Deponents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086A8801983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Util Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas.Submission to Discovery Would Cause Immediate Grave & Irreparable Injury to Organizational Viability.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20081F8991983-11-0202 November 1983 Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas Against Govt Accountability Project Deponents,L Clark, T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg.Response from Deponents Must Be Filed Before 831110.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E8931983-10-31031 October 1983 Reply to Applicant 831014 Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of B Stamiris 831005 Motion to Litigate Two Dow Issues.Issues Timely Raised & Present New Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H4271983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Continue Beginning Date of Hearings Scheduled for 831031 to 3 Days After Date.Extended Hearing Necessary to Allow Time to Receive Responses to 831011 Discovery Requests.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081B1751983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion to Compel CPC Responses to 831011 Interrogatories & Request for Production Re Investigation of Alleged Violation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H3401983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion for Admission Into Evidence of Transcript of Jl Donnell 831015 Deposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E9481983-10-25025 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of 831021 Appeal of ASLB Orders Granting Issuance of Subpoenas.Subpoenas Violate First Amend Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B0681983-10-21021 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Appeal from ASLB Orders Granting Discovery Against Govt Accountability Project.Subpoenas Violate Common Law of Privilege.Util Showed No Compelling Need for Discovery ML20078K3141983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to B Stamiris 831005 Second Supplemental Memorandum Supporting Dow Issues.Stamiris Fails to Show New & Significant Info Justifying Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F5561983-10-0505 October 1983 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Stamiris Motion to Litigate Dow Chemical Co Issues Against Applicant.Dow Documents & Complaints Support Litigation of Issues Raised in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P9131983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion to Stay Depositions of L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg as Directed in ASLB 830831 Order.Depositions Should Be Stayed Pending Review of 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078A3471983-09-21021 September 1983 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 830808 Motion to Litigate Dow Issues.Documents Reveal That Util Knew Fuel Load Dates Presented to NRC Jul 1980 - Apr 1983 False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S7161983-09-19019 September 1983 Motion by L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg for Extension Until 830930 to File Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830831 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8261983-09-0202 September 1983 Response Opposing M Sinclair Motion to Reconsider Privilege Ruling.Presence of Bechtel Officials at 821124 Meeting Does Not Destroy Privilege.Bechtel & CPC Share Common Legal Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8771983-09-0202 September 1983 Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Submitting Proposed Findings of Fact on Remedial Soils Issues.Intervenors Should Be Required to File Proposed Findings on Remedial Soils Issues by 831115.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076F3261983-08-23023 August 1983 Motion for Extension Until 830902 to Respond to Intervenor Motion to Reconsider Order Upholding atty-client Privilege Protection for 821124 Util/Bechtel Meeting.Motion Received 5 Days After Mailing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076C6711983-08-17017 August 1983 Response to M Sinclair & B Stamiris 830728 Motions Re Dow Vs Util Lawsuit.Aslb Should Defer Motions for 30 Days.Motions Could Be Refiled After Documents Reviewed.Two Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards in Pdr.Certificate of Svc Encl 1986-08-25
[Table view] |
Text
' -- ~ - - - - - _
Q ..
3 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) '
)
)
MOTION FOR ORDER STRIKING CONTENTIONS OF THE MAPLETON INTERVENORS Applicant, Consumers Power Company, moves the Board for .
- an Order that the contentions designated below, which have been set forth in the statement dated June 4, 1971, on behalf of the Mapleton Intervenors, be stricken for the reasons specified below.
For the convenience of the Board each " contention" which applicant moves be stricken is quoted below, together with a specification of the reasons why applicant believes the conten-tion ~ should be stricken. '
I. Contention:
"That to permit construction and/or operation of the proposed nuclear reactors at the proposed site in such close proximity to the AESCHLIMAN et al Inter-venors of Mapleton, Michigan and under all other circumstances and conditions prevailing would constitute a clear violation of 10 CFR Part 100."
This contention should be stricken because it fails to specify respects in which construction or operation of the proposed and it fails plant would constitute a violation of 10 CFR Part 100 ;
to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention 8b06250f
] ;
or of the nature of evidence which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention. By reason of its generality and lack of specificity , the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on-January 1, and on May 1 and June 7, 1971. (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19) and fails to ccmply J the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec.
~
2.714 (a) and Appendix A Sec. III(b) (4) and with the Board's published order.
II. Contention:
"That 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, as applied to the AESCHLIMAM et al Intervenors is arbitrary and unreason-able, and constitutes a violation of vested legal rights under the Constitutions of the State of Michigan and of the United States of America."
This contention should be stricken because it fails to specify the nature of the legal rights allegedly violated or to specify the ' provisions of the Constitutions of Michigan and of the United States of America allegedly violated or the nature of the evidence which the Mapleton intervenors would propose to adduce in support of such alleged violations. The contention should be stricken also because it is accompanied by no of fer of proof as to the basis for their contention that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, is arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise invalid.
For the foregoing reasons this contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and May 1, and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 344-46, 1218-19), fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR, Part 2, Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A, Sec. III(b) (4) and with paragraph 2 of the Board's order dated
,. q.i May 18, 1971, and is inconsistent with the Board's orders dated April 27, 1971 and June 1, 1971 concerning the challenges of the other intervenors to Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.
III. Contention:
"That 10 CFR Part 20, as presently applicable and/or applied, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and constitutes a violation of vested legal rights under the Constitu-tions of the State of Michigan and of the United States of America."
This contention should be stricken because it fails to specify the nature of the legal rights allegedly violated or to specify the provisions of the Constitutions of Michigan and of the United States of America allegedly violated or the nature of the evidence which the Mapleton intervenors would propose to adduce in support of such alleged violations. The contention should be stricken also because it is accompanied by no offer of proof as to the basis for their contention that 10 CFR Part 20 is arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise invalid. For the foregoing reasons this contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr.
544-46, 1218-19), fails to comply with the Commission't t.2gulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A, Sec. III (b) (4) and with paragraph 2 of the Board's order of May 18, 1971, and does not satisfy the criteria of the Commission's Calvert Cliffs decision. .
5
] ' ]'
a III - A Contention:
- "That permitting applicant to dump any radioactive waste into the proposed cooling pond or emitting such radioactive waste into the atmosphere under all the circumstances and conditions prevailing would constitute a violation of 10 CFR Part 20, . a claimed radiological hazard and danger to the health of AESCHLIMAN et al Intervenors and/or their invitees and/or children."
This contention should be stricken because there is no showin'g that any. radioactive waste will be discharged into the proposed cooling pond; in fact, radioactive waste will not be discharged into the proposed cooling pond. The application for
license before this Board does not request authorization for the disposal of radioactive waste into the proposed cooling pond.
4 The contention should be stricken also because it fails to
specify respects in which the discharge of radioactive waste J
would constitute a violation of 10 CFR Part 20. Moreover, it fails j to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention or the nature of evidence which the intervenor
. proposes to adduce in support of the contention. By reason'of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and
'May i and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19), and fails to comply with tjhe Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, l
4 Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A, Sec. III(b) (4) and with published orders of the Board.
III -B Contention: ,- ;
1 "That permitting applicant to dump any radioactive waste into the proposed cooling pond or emitting such radioactive waste into the atmosphere under all the
circumstances and conditions prevailing without the ~
)
consent of the AESCHLIMAN et al Intervenors constitutes a
. claimed violation of the vested legal rights under the l Constitutions of the State of Michigan and the United I l
States of America." l
- o...__._. _ _ _'__ _ _ _.___
n
/ ]
T 4
This contention should be stricken on the ground that there is no showing that any radioacti ve was t e will be disposed of into the proposed cooling pond; in fact, applicant does not propose to dispose of radioactive waste into the proposed cooling pond.
This contention should be stricken, also because it fails to specify the respects in which the discharge of radioactive waste from the proposed plant would constitute a violation of the Constitutions of the State of Michigan and the United States of America; and it fails to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention or of the nature of evidence which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention.
Be reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19), and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A, Sec. III (b) ( 4) and with published orders of the Board.
III - C Contention:
"That permitting applicant to dump waste on land not owned by the Federal or State Govern-ments ' constitutes a violation of 10 ' CFR Part 20."
This contention should be stricken because there is no showing that applicant proposes to dispose of radioactive waste on land not owned- by the Federal or State Governments ; in fact, applicant does not propose to disy-se of radioactive waste on land not cwned by the Federal or Sts.te Governments. This conten--
a s
A tion should be stricken also because the application for license before this Board does not request authorization for the disposal of radioactive waste on land. The contention should be stricken also because it fails to specify respects in which the alleged activity referred to would constitute a violation of 10 CFR Part 20; and it fails to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention or the nature of the evidence which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention.
By reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the conten-tion violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr.544-46, 1218-19) and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 and with published orders of the Board.
IV. Contention:
"That the failure of the emergency core cooling system for nuclear power plants which have been recently tested in small scale simulated models in Idaho by the Idaho Nuclear Corporation constitutes a grave hazard and danger to the health and safety of AESCHLIMAN et al and/or their property rights, ,
and proceeding in this licensing matter at this time and not holding it in abeyance until emergency core cooling systems have been properly designed, thoroughly researched and developed, and completely tested in full scale models at the Idaho test location and not under simulation, is respectfully contended to be an abuse of discretion and a violation of vested legal rights under the Constitutions of the State of Michigan and of the United States of America."
-l}
This contention should be otricken because it fails to specify respects in which the proposed emergency core cooling system for the Midland plant would not be adequate; and it fails to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention or of the nature of evidence which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention. By reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conferences on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19), and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2.714(a) Appendix A, Sec. III(b) (4) and with published orders of the Board.
V. - VI - A Contentions:
"That the operation of the proposed units is likely to impair or destroy the air or constitute a hazard or danger to the health and safety of the AESCHLIMAN et al.
Intervenors and/or their vested property rights in the following particulars:
VI - A
" Likelihood of escape of radioactive gasses, expecially with passage of time."
This contention should be stricken because it fails to specify respects in which the matter referred to would constitute a violation of AEC regulations or an undue risk to public health and . safety; and it f ails to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention or of the nature of evidence '
which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention. By reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the
~- ,
en
(]) s) i conference on January 21'and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19), and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A. Sec. III(b) (4) and with published Board orders.
VI - B Contention:
" Likelihood of radioactive additions to atmospheric fog created and/or aggravated by operation of the proposed cocling pond and cooling tower; it being contended that under the peculiar meteorological conditions at or about the proposed site that water vapor will have a tendency to trap and retain such radioactivity and for want of dispersion with inversion, will concentrate such radioactive gasses."
This contention should be stricken because it fails to specify what peculiar meteorological conditions at or about the proposed site will lead to the consequences referred to; and it fails to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contention er nf the nature of evidence which the intervenor proposes to adduce in support of the contention. By reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conference on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1215-19), and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2. 714 (a) and Appendix A., Sec. III(b) (4) and with published Board orders.
. VI - C to I, inclusive, VII and VIII Contentions:
" Likelihood of dangerous or hazardous vehicular driving conditions by reason of fogging and
- interference with visibility, and also creation of slippery and treacherous driving conditions from icing in winter time caused and/or contributed to by the cooling tower."
O 6
r . -
. .. . -. - - . . .~
-s
.h _9_ U VI - D.
" Likelihood of creation of noxious or deleterious odors from chemical additives in operation of the proposed cooling pond and/or tower with.possible radioactive gasses or vapors emanating therefrom."
VI - E
" Likelihood of property damage from the foregoing."
VI - F ,
" Likelihood of injurious or detrimental effects on health, physical and/or mental."
l
- VI G
" Likelihood of substantial or material interference with use and enjoyment of property."
VI - H "Likelihcod of ' destruction cn: impairment of business."
VI.- L
" Depreciation of property values."
VI - M
" Likelihood of noise and/or noise pollution from operation of proposed cooling tower."
-VII Contention:
"That the location'of the site and/or operation
, of the proposed nuclear power plant leaves
- AESCHLIMAN et al. with nofinsurance coverage in the event of a nuclear accident by reason of the nuclear exclusion clause, and.said Intervenors;have suffered deprivation of-their property rights by reason thereof withia . .
tue scope and meaning of the! Constitutions of the State of Michigan and the United States of America."
V 4 %
,,--y ., ,,,--,,.,-. ,,,, ...__.. - ~-i-, y 9- 4 .- ,.. ,w-, - . g
o v'
10-VIII Contention:
"AESCHLIMAN et al. assert rights protectable by the Michigan ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT of 1970, effective October 1, 1970; a-copy of which is attached hereto."
These contentions should be stricken because they refer to matters which are not within the jurisdiction of this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board under the Notice of Hearing dated October.29, 1970, in this proceeding; because they fail to specify the respects in which the matters referred to would constitute grounds for the denial of the application and because they f ail to apprise the Board or the Applicant of the basis for such contentions or of the nature of the evidence which the intervenor proposes to introduce in support of the contentions.
By reason of its generality and lack of specificity, the contention violates the instructions of the Board at the conference on January 21 and May 1 and June 7, 1971 (Tr. 544-46, 1218-19),
and fails to comply with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Sec. 2.714 (a) and Appendix A. , Sec. III(b) (4) and with published orders of the Board.
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the contentions of the-Mapleton intervenors should be stricken, their leave to intervene s
4
O O
'( . .
11-should be revoked, and their petition should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, ,
LOWENSTEIN AND NEWMAN 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 I .
By A cys w-Robert Lowenstein Attorney for Consumers Power Company, Applicant Of Counsel:
Jerome E. Sharfman Harold P. Graves John K. Restrick Richard G. Smith O
S Y
a