ML20115J435

Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding

ML20115J435
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/19/1985
From:	Phillips T, Pirich J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, MIDLAND, MI, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#285-631 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8504230544
Download: ML20115J435 (4)

Text

l (ob o j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I DOCKETED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APpdAECBOARD N APR22 P5:i4 l In the Matter of )

) CFF'CE OF SECRETAi. <

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket N68C,XE4qgyog. ; & on

) SP38t) OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE The City of Midland and County of Midland, State of Michigan move, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.715(d), for leave to i

g participate as amicus curiae in the Board of Appeal's  ;

a y a quest for responses to questions presented in its 1

h Memoranda and Orders of March 13, 1985 and April 5, 1985, in ,

! Docket Nos. 50-329 OL & OM and 50-330 OL & OM. Pursuant to

! g i

5 l 5 the same, the City and County of Midland state as follows:

n j 1. Both the City and County of Midland are corporate municipalities within whose exclusive jurisdictions the Midland project of Consumers Power Ccapany is located.

~

2. ~With the shutdown of the plant in July, 1984 and the resultant reduction in the property tax assessment of the facility as determined in December, 1984, these corporate municipalities can anticipate that property tax l revenues from the shutdown plant will approximate $6,000,000 in 1985 whereas revenues for 1984 were S12,000,000.

3. In the event of completion of the plant and its assessment at full value the facility  : 1 n e.the major For the Appeal Boar'd - ef 8504230544 850419 DR ADOCK 05000329 Qbbs . b,, 4 -M-95 l

4 Secetary to the Appeal Board

O l

taxpayer for both corporate municipalities, even though The Dow Chemical Company and Dow Corning Corporation are both located within their jurisdictions.

4. In addition, a completed and operational Midland facility would employ approximately 447 persons with an annual total payroll of approximately $15,500,000.

5. If the facility is ultimately abandoned, the annual loss in annual property tax revenues will have a devastating impact on the tax bases of these governmental entities and the quality of life of their citizens.

6. Further, demonstrable evidence exists that the i

O g power needs of Michigan require completion of the Midland I

w facility. In support, Roger Fischer, Chief of the Michigan

$ Public Service Commission Staff, testified in Michigan N

i Public Service Commission Rate Case No. U-7830 (Midland),

5 l

i that the Midland facility should be completed to meet Michigan's energy needs in the 1990's and beyond. Mr.

Fischer's assessment is supported by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and the United States Department of Energy also support completion of the facility.

7. As a result of all of the above, the City and County of Midland have vigorously protected their interests through active intervention in U-7830 and U-7830 (Midland) before the Michigan Public Service Commission and, more recently, by the Commissioning of an exhaustive feasibil-ity study to explore the completion of the facility, i

8. While the results of this study have thus far proven encouraging, any progress made will be utterly gutted by the tentative ruling of the Appeal Board for the reason that vacating the Licensing Board's decision (LBP-85-2) on mootness grounds, and stripping this decision of any possible precedential effect, will require any entity interested in completion of the plant to either move for reinstatement of the Licensing Board's decision or, conversely, move for a de novo hearing. This would be an expensive and time consuming process. Similarly, the application for the operating license which this Appeal O

g Board apparently intends to dismiss for " failure to pursue i

w it" will serve to cause unnecessary uncertainty and,

$ therefore, also chill the interests of parties who might 4

5 consider completing the facility. Further, if the Appeal 6

y Board follows through with its proposed actions, the true i

cash value of the facility will decrease which, in turn, will further reduce the assessed value in future tax years.

9. Accompanying this Motion is a Memorandum more fully explicating the position of the City and County of Midland on the issues raised by this Appeal Board's orders of March 13 and April 5, 1985.

WHEREFORE, for the above reasons, the City and County of Midland request that this Appeal Board grant them leave 9

to participate as amicus curiae in the issues raised in its Memoranda and Orders of March 13 and April 5, 1985, respectively.

Respectfully submitted, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE John D. Pirich, P.C. (P-23204 Thomas C. Phillips (P-24113) l

~~

. 1 Dated: 1 By JQhn D. Piridh, P.C.

l C;  ! , c' '

r 'l.

hl. 4 \ '< . l ~,.v/~d b d j

Dated: <1 By ' >;

= ' Thomas C. Phillips

$ Business Address:

s One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 y Lansing, Michigan 48933 5 (517) 487-2070 g 60636-6 TCPE:038 4/19/85