ML19331A911

Response to Motion to Recall Show Cause Proceeding.Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331A911
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/31/1976
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, MAPLETON INTERVENORS, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19331A912	List: ML19331A911
References
NUDOCS 8007240492
Download: ML19331A911 (4)

Text

I *

.

~.

2 m, L_

-

. .

.

. -, .

"

~

e . .

'" o, c-

%

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I5*

q #' 3, before the ( g .

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y' g

/

.

8o 3

In the Matter of )

) '

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY- ) Locket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

)

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO RECALL SHCW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS Saginaw and Mapleton Intervenors, by their attorney, hereby oppose the motion of Consumers Power Company to recall show cause proceedings. In support of this opposition, Intervenors state:

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") has delegated to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board responsibility for implemen-

-

ting the Commission's show cause proceedings. That order deprived the NRC of direct jurisdiction on the issues of Consumers Power

.

• Company's (" Consumers") motion, and Consu.ners' motion should be directed to the Licensing Beard in the firs.t instance.

2. Consumers' motion is really a broadside attack on por-tions of the Commission's General Statement of Policy of August 13, 1976. As such, it should be considered as a comment to the General .

• Statement of Policy since the Statement itself sets up a mechanism to 1

- receive reactions like the assertions underlying Consumers' show i

cause proceedings motion. - - - -

_.

'

~

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

' POOR QUAuiy PAGES 1

,

-- ,

i i

• i ..

l

.

.

.

% ..

.

. .

,

.

.

3. Even if the Commission were to entertain Consumers' motion, we think it should be denied because:

(a) prompt implementation of the Court of Appeals' decision concerning the Midland facility must take place now or the NRC will be joining in Consumers transparent efforts to build the Midland facility and avoid consideration of any of the environmental and safety issues required to be heard on remand; (b) Consumers Power Company has not set out any reasons of any nature as to why it might be successful in the Supreme Court and for that reason the equities are on the side of Intervenors in connection with the show cause suspension pro-ceedings; and (c) the show cause suspension proceedings must move for-ward promptly since we believe that (if fairly analyzed) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will have no recourse but to halt construction of the Midland facility in anticipation of the remanded hearings in connection with energy conservation, an invalid ACRS letter, other environmental issues, and a re-

• vised cost analysis including consideration of fuel cycle issues.

For all of the above reasons, Consumers Power Company's motion to recall show cause proceedings should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

-

A

' A I Mytof Cherry, Attorney fof Saginaw and Ma ston Intervenors

.

Myron M. Cherry [

suite 4501 Dated: August 31, 1976 One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 312/565-1177 *

.

', -

.

.

%

.

• i .

O

' - ~

.

r

• -

___. .

.

%

.

@ g e

k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p gql \

before the i 2 0 g \dIb Ill

$

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QYf a7h . /

%

'

% nn

)

In'the Matter of )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of the attached Intervenors' Response to Consumers Power Company's Motion to Recall Show Cause Proceedings were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail at One IBM Plaza, postage prepaid and properly addressed, on August 31, 1976:

Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad

• 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

.

' Mr. C. R. Stephens

• Supervisor, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter L. Strauss, Esq.

General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

' Howard K. Shapar, Esq., Executive Legal Director I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Washington, D.C. 20555

.

$

.

.

,

, - _ .

• i ,

.

. .

. i

. . .

. .

Howard J. Vogel, Esq.

Post Office Box 5108 St. Paul, P' nesota 55104 The Honorable Vern Miller Attorney General Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Daniel M. Head, Esq., Chairman-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.,' Member 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096

.

.

' ,.

u 2 Myron, Cherry, Attorney f r Saginaw and Ma eton Intervenors Dated: August 31, 1976

.

.

Myron M. Cherry suite 4501

. .e One IBM Plaza

• Chicago, Illinois 60611 312/565-1177-

-

.

t

.

'

.

• s i