ML19338C077

Util Motion for Order Requiring Intervenors,Saginaw,Mapleton & Environ Defense Fund to State Contentiona & Bases for Preclusion Order.Intervenors Should Be Required to Set Forth Contentions by 711110,per ASLB 710930 Order

ML19338C077
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/23/1971
From:	Lowenstein R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007310660
Download: ML19338C077 (3)

Text

- -~._

.q; . .

-

• 2l; L j 1-

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

l

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION -

.l b

InithenMatter'of' ') /3 p.,f ') / ' -l

)

' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and.2) -)

APPLICANT'S; MOTION FOR-ORDER REQUIRING INTERVENORS TO STATE'THEIR CONTENTIONS, AND THE BASES THEREFOR, AND FOR A PRECLUSION ORDER i

1. As is more fully. set forth in Section I of Applicant's

. Memorandum dated October 23, 1971 "In Response to the End-of-

' September. Submissions" of the opposing intervenors, the

. opposition intervenors' (Saginaw, Mapleton, and EDF) have failedito comply with the Board order of August 26, which

. required them'to fileEby September 30, 1971'"a preliminary. ,

l statement of.their-views on environmental questions".*

As-set 1forth in'the Board's Order of August 26,11971, intervenors' statements were to cover the following:

"1. Identify those1 aspects of the environment,: '

e.g., air quality,-water quality, land use, etc.

which they presently believe would be~ adversely.

affected by the proposed plant and specify'in detail the nature-of each adverse effect~as.they_

l presently perceive ~it.-

, =2.; The1 alternatives'to'the proposed plant _which

-should be considered by the-Board-and the, reasons,-

! 1

in$ detail, why theyfconsider any of those'alterna-tives?to be preferable to*the proposed plant.

3.: >Identifylthe' facts which should'be' considered e

by the Board-in its " risk-benefit" analysis with-

, particularDattention to'the importance tolbe attached : by-: the. Board to; theE ef fect of the decision."

-[page 4]l

" .^ .

8;o07s10$.(,p.,.'d Q c u

~

' b.

,j

]

2. For' reasons more fully' set forth in Section I of Applicant's Memorandum of October-23, 1971, the various int'ervenors should each be required -to set forth, by November 10, 1971,- their contentions, if they have any, as to any

- adverse environmental effects from the proposed plant, 2

together with~the bases for such-contentions. The order should~ preclude the_ assertion ~of~any contentiens regarding alleged adverse environmental-effects with respect to any matter not'so set forth, without prejudice to a future determination.as to~whether there is any violation of pro-ceduralirequirements of'NEPA or of Appendix D (10 CFR Part 50)'as to-which--intervenors may. complain.

-3. ~Intervenors have had ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the plant.and with environmental effects from the plant as a-resultiof their participation in this case for -

almost one year, the -filing of Applicant's environmental

_ report,-the-filing of Applicant'-s comments'on: agency comments, the-filing by Applicant of a supplement-environmental report, 1

the materials.previously. furnished to intervenors in pre- .

l hearingiproceedings, - and thef evidence adduced at the hearing. '

- Clearly.there has been.no showing of:cause by the intervenors

~. as :to why; they. areLunable to do _ so.

i .

t 8

f s I N e. -e. m + 4 , .s ^s

L...

..  :. m y i

=4.. Wherefore,l Applicant requests the issuance.of an

-order as~ described in paragraph 2, above.

i

~

-Dated:

October:23, 1971'  ;

' Respectfully submitted,

.l hm m__

LOWENSTElli AND NEWMAN 1100~ Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel, ,

Harold P. Graves' Robert Lowenstein

John K. Restrick Jerome E. Sharfman Richard ~G. Smith- .

,e f

i 1

e N e

-l l

- l l

^

1

. l

.,