|
---|
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 ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding 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 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 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 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 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl 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 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 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
~ ~
,.,,w f
\tE41 - s _
3 00 .
9
~
23 NI$ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .a.,".
,, NUCLEAR REGULA*ORY COMMISSICN 13, 'w' # 8 C
In the Matter of )
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 53 329
) 50-330 (Midland Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER OF APRIL 10, 1978 Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company, by their attorneys, respectfully submit this response to the Commission's Order of April 10, 1978, requesting the parties to state "what issues, if any, remain for further Commission .
consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decisions" in this case and in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
It is the position of Intervenors that all of the issues tendered to the Licensing Board and to the Appeal Board in these proceedings since the July 1976 decision of the Court -
of Appeals remain appropriate and necessary for further consid-eration. These issues include all of tnose identified by the Appeal Board in ALAB-458, and by the Licensing Board in its March 9, 1978 Notice of Prehearing Conference.
c The reason that all of these issues remain hoch appropriate and necessary subject for further consideration is simple. Whatever might be the case if the Cennission record THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 8007250 b O h P00R QUAUTY PAGES
f-in Midland had remained stagnant since the initial Licensing Board decision.in 1972, in fact the record has not remained stagnant--rather the reverse. Since the decision of the E Court of Appeals, more than 6,000 transcript pages of testimony and several hundred exhibits have been introduced before the Commission, and have materially and substantially altered the factual picture before the Commission. For example, and limited only to the issues identified by the Licensing and Appeal Boards:
- 1. The record shows that Consumers' demand projec-tions (critical to its need-for-power claims) have dropped drastically since the initial decision in 1972.
- 2. The involvement of Dow Chemical Company in the Midland Project--a sine qua non of both the size and location of the Midland Project, as everyone frankly admitted in 1972--has become so reluctant, and the relations between Dow and Consumers have so drastically deteriorated, that as of September 1977 the Liceasing Board could only characterize continued Dow involvement with the Project as " speculative."
~
- 3. The always obscure ACRS Report on Midland has not only failed to inform Intervenors or the public of what unresolved safety issues exist with regard to the plant; we now know that it has left the Commission Staff in the dark .
as well.* (So important is this ACRS issue, in fact, that the Appeal Board in ALAB-458, Slip Op. at 24-25, 43 n. 87,
- And, it would appear, members of the Licensing Board also.
See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant), .
LBT-77-28, 5 NRC 1081, 1117-18 (1977).
. n .m.
~
, emphatically directed the Licensing Board vigorously to pursue that subject whether the parties do so or not.)
- 4. There remains incomplete the " full airing and I resolution" of the serious issues arising from rhe preparation of the written testimony of Dow's witness Joseph Temple. (The Appeal Board correctly regarded these issues, like the ACRS issues, as sufficiently important to require further explora-tion "whether or not the parties are themselves otherwise interested in pursuing these matters." ALA3-458, Slip Op. at 43 n.87.)
- 5. Finally, fuel cycle issues have never been considered in this case (except for occasional e.1 carte cenments made without the benefit .of evidence, briefing, or argument).
If we look at the record without limiting our-
.s selves to the literal terms of the Licensing and Appeal Boards' lists of issues, we find.that every significant fact about the Midland Project has undergone radical change in the six years
~
since the ' original record was closed in 1972. Consumers' habitually optimistic and inflated demand projections have undergone,a constant downward slide, beginning as early as 1974 (when, according to Consumers, " energy conservation" produced such a precipitous drop in demand projections as to .
force it to drop completely plans to construct the Quanicassee Nuclear Plant *), and continuing until as recently as January 31,
- Consumers Power Co. (Quanicassee Units 1 & 2) , Dockets 50-475, 50-476, Applicant's Petition To Withdraw Notice Of Hearing (May,9, 1974) at 2-5. .
_ n. .--_.. . _ . .. . _ ~ . --_ . - , . -
. ,~ ,,
~
1973, when Consumers' prior 5.2% annual growth rate projection dropped to 4.4%**for 1978-82,-2.8% for 1983-87, and 2.1% for 1988-92--a drop of fully 60% in the last few months alone. E Throughout the pericd when these demand projections were being cut by as much'as 60%, moreover,'the costs of the Midland Plant were soaring--frem a little over $500 million (on which the original 1972 decision was based) to the neighbor-hood of S2 billion. Thus not only is the Midland Project drastically less necessary than was thought in 1972, even in terms of Consumers' own projected demand, but the electricity it will produce has become ever more expensive.
Nor is that all. Since the original 1972 decision, the Commission itself has uncovered serious antitrust viola-tions with regard to the Midland Project, leading to the 400-page ruling in ALA3-452. Dow Chemical Company refuses to s
concede that its contract with Consumers even remains valid or enforceable, let alone beneficial to Dow. The QA-QC violations which have bedeviled the Midland Project from the outset continue unabated, and add even more expense and " cost overruns" to the Project. , _
We repeat: none of these develocments involve matters dehors the Commission record in Midland. All of them are cart of the Commission's alreadv existine record in this case. The Supreme Court decision, of course, did not focus on that record as it has developed in the sik years since the original 1972 decision, nor could the Court
. . ,~ .
havedonesog}venthe.approachtheCourtadopted. Rather, the Supreme Cowrt held only that on the 1972 record the Commission had not erred.* ,
E The governing principle here is straigntforward, and not only is untouched by the Supreme Court's rulings but
'n i fact was urged upon that Court by Consumers itself (which repeatedly reassured the Court that reversing the Court of Appeals would not require blind adherence to a 1972 decisien in the teeth of 1978 facts). The Court of Appeals for' the dixth Circuit stated the principle in Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, 468 F.2d 1164, 1176 (6th Cir.1974) , by pointing out that NEPA requires not merely an initial examination, but also " constant reevaluations of projects already begun" ,
in order "to determine whether alterations can be made...or whether there are alternatives to proceeding with the projects as initially planned." Other courts, e.g., Hudoon River .
Fishermen's Ass'n v. FPC, 498 E.2d 827, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1974),
and the Council on Environmental Quality, see 40 C.F.R.
S 1500.13,. agree. This Commission ihself made the point -
- The Supreme Court did not hold even that much, of' course, with regard to the fuel cycle issues. On the contrary, it remanded the fuel cycle matters to the Court of Appeals for a determination of the question--deliberately left open by -
the Supreme Court--of whether the record on which the original
, fuel cycle rulemaking was based was adequate to support the result reached. Thus there is nothing 1.n the Supreme Court
. decisions which alters the conclusion of the Appeal Board in ALAB-458, and the Licensing Board in its March 9, 1978 Order, that fuel cycle matters remain to be considered in Midland.
k
-___.________.-____..-m_.---___________-.m___ .u.__- ___-m
t' ,,
emphatically in Commonwealth Edison Co., ALAB-153, 6 AEC 821, 823-24 (1973):
...(I]t is not proper to resolve a major environmental question on the basis of a set of facts existing in the past if there is good. reason to believe that there may be an appreciable, and material, change in the factual situation."
See also Consolidated Edison Co., ALAI-188, 7 AEC 323, 407 (1974).
Here there is much more than " good reason" to suspect that matters have changed. Here.there are 6,000.
pages of proof, already of record before this Commission, that matters have changed dramatically indeed. Even the partial and preliminary examination of the facts conducted in connection with the suspension-of-construction issue yielded information which seriously troubled the Licensing
^
Board, and led the Appeal Board not only to concede that at first blush it "might be expected (that] the cost-benefit balance (had tipped] against.the plant," ALAB-458, Slip Op.
at 23, but also to conclude that.further exploration of several issues was essential whether the parties themselves thought so or,not.
To stop now on the sole basis of the Supreme Court decision: .
-- would ignore Consumers' repeated reassurances
~
to that Court that its decision would not bring the Commission's ongoing regulatory responsibilities to a halt; 4
-m
. . _ _ .. ~
, p ,, -
would inject into the Supreme Court decision something the Court did not pur' port to hold; e --
would ignore the clear mandate of NEPA as interpreted by the courts, the Council'on E Environmental Quality, and this co= mission; and would stultify ec=pletely this Commission's regulatory duties and powers.
Whatever the reason for which it w. t cer. piled, there is now before the Commission an extensive reco:d raising extremely-serious questions about the viability of the Midland Project.
Those questions must be answered. The Supreme Court's decision provides no w>;eant whatsoever for shunting them aside or for attempting to "unring the bell." To the contrary, the Supreme Court's repeated references to the thoroughness of the' nuclear regulatory process merely reinforces the importance of living-up to that thoroughness in this case, by not* arbitrarily trun-cating the ongoing inquiry into the host of unanswered and extremely serious questions posed by the present record.
Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company submit that all of the questions posed by the Licensing Board's March 9, 1978 Notice of ? rehearing Conference (and in addition the further questions raised by c
Consumers' continuing history of.QA-QC_ violations, by ALA3-458, and by the substantial evidence of record that Consumers lacks t
the financial wherewithal to complete the Midland Project with-
[
out massive outside assistance) rema,in essential topics for
~
v ..
further Commission consideration. Nothing in the Supreme S
Court's opinion remotely suggests otherwise.
Respectfully submitted, l
W_ ,
One of the A $orneys for Intervenors qther than Dow Chemical Company
.i e
i 1
4
-l MYRON M. CHERRY PETER A'. FLYNN Law Offices One IBM Plaza - Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 565-1177 l
~
,.; p. ,.
PRCOF OF SERVICE
?
I certify that I mailed copies of the above and foregoing Intervenors' Response to Comission Order of April 10, 1978 to counsel for Consumers Power Company, Dow Chemical Company, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and to the Docketing and Services Section of the Commission by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 24th day of April, 1978.
R4 '
lY% w Peter Flyng o
e e
4 e
G e
,ee s .-,