ML19329E592
| ML19329E592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1972 |
| From: | Joseph E Pollock MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329E593 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160378 | |
| Download: ML19329E592 (6) | |
Text
/
UNITED FTATES OF AMERICA 4
BEFORE THE j
ATOMIC ENERGY COD 1ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A, (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330A
)
INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY To:
Jerome Garfinkel, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to Section 2.730 (c) of the Commission's M
Rules of Practice, Intervenors herein respond to Consumers Power Company's
(" Company") Motion dated November 15, 1972, and request that it be denied.
In support of this request Intervenors state as follows:
1.
This Company motion was dated November 15, 1972, and received by counsel for Intervenors on November 16, 15 days after the answer filed by Intervenors on November 1, 1972, and 14 days after the answer filed by the Department of Justice on November 2, 1972.
Thus it is filed out of time and should be dismissed.
- j/ Traverse City Light & Power Department, Grand Haven Board of Light & Power, Holland Board of Public Works, Zeeland Board of Public Works, Coldwater Board of Public Utilities, Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Inc., Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Michigan Municipal Electric Association.
800eseo 3 8
4' (a)
Section 2.730 (c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, requires that answers to motions be filed within five (5) days after service of a written notice.
This time requirement is also applicable to a reply.
(b)
Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of
- /
Appellate Procedure requires that a resconse in opposition to a motion be filed within seven (7) days after service of the motion, and that it state with particularity the grounds on which it is based.
2.
The company does not state grounds for permitting the motion, nor does the Company offer any excuse for the lateness of the filing.
The undefined
" novel issues" (page 1) cannot be attributed to Inter-venors' answer which was confined to those issues raised by the company in its " Objections" dated October 26, 1972.
Unspecified " novel issues" are not sufficient ground to Larmit re-argument of the Company " objections"
- / Rule 27 of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals states in part:
"...A reply may be filed within three days after service of a response in opposition to a motion, but such reply shall not rearque propositions presented in the motion.
[ emphasis supplied].
- l
[
I~
i 4-which have been fully presented to the Board along with timely answers.
Should the present motion be granted, Intervenors would reserve their right to respond to the reply.
However, another round of "rearguments" would only delay the timely completion of the first round of discovery and place an undue burden on the Intervenors.
3.
The Board has established definite time frames for this proceeding (Second Prehearing Conference Order of the Board, issued November 3, 1972), and time is fast slipping away.
Any delay at this time would seriously affect Intervenors' preparation of their case, and the time frames established by the Board.
4.
Finally, the Company states that since the Department of Justice requests in its answer that discovery be completed be certain dates there is some justification for permitting this reply.
The motion in question was clearly made in accordance with the Board's Order (Id., page 2), where it was stated:
"If the objection is found to be unsatisfactory, the party seeking discovery shall forthwith file a motion with the Board.
The other parties will have two workina davs in which to resnond after taking into account uailing time allowed -
under the Rules of Practice."
[ emphasis added].
The Department of Justice's motion met these standards, but the Company's motion fails to meet the Board's clearly defined time limits by a wide margin, and would destroy the control factors established for the proper conduct of this proceeding.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Intervenors respectfully request that the Chairman deny Consumers Power Company's motion for leave to file a reply.
Respectfully submitted, c.m.,
C.= 4 Jamds Carl Pollock Attorney for Traverse City Light &
Power Department, Grand Haven Board of Light & Power, Holland Board of Public Works, Zeeland Board of Public Works, Coldwater Board of Public Utilities, Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Inc., Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Michigan Municipal Electric Association.
November 21, 1972 Law Offices of a
George Spiegel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037
/
_4_
UNITED STATES OF AA1 ERICA BEFORE THE
~
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330A
)
AFFIDAVIT James Carl Pollock, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an attorney for the City of Traverse City, Michigan and the Traverse City Light and Power Department; City of Grand Haven, Michigan, Board of Light and Power; City of Holland, Michigan, Board of Public Works; City of Zeeland, Michigan, and the Zeeland Board of Public Works; City of Coldwater, Michigan, Board of Public Utilities; the Michigan Municipal Electric Association and Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Inc. and that as such he has signed the foregoing Response to Applicant's Motion for Leave to File Reply for and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized by the parties so to do; that he has read said Response and is familiar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information or belief.
w G A SM 4 JameV Carl Pollock Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of November, 1972.
/
.)
)
)
,l i
i#/
t
/s Notary'Public My commission expires:
September 30, 1974
UNITED STATES OF AMERI DEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 21st day of November, 1972:
Algie A. Wells, Esq.
Jerome Garfinkel, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 Mr. Frank W.
Karas, Chief Abraham Braitman, Esq.
Public Proceedings Brand Chief, Office of Antitrust Office of the Secretary and Indemnity U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Wa shington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 Joseph J.
Saunders, Esq.
Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Department of Justice Antitrust Public Counsel Antitrust Division Post Office Box 7513 Washington, D. C.
20530 Washington, D. C.
20044 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel Post Office Box 941 Consumers Power Company Houston, Texas 77001 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Hugh K. Clark, Esq.
Post Office Box 127A William Warfield Ross, Esq.
Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Wald, Harkrader, Nicholson & Ross 1320- 19th Street, N. W.
Honorable Frank Kelly Washington, D. C.
20036 Attorney General State of Michigan Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 48913 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland bt h
James \\darl Pollock s
--