ML19329F318
| ML19329F318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1970 |
| From: | Wessel M DOW CHEMICAL CO., KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006250405 | |
| Download: ML19329F318 (33) | |
Text
__
- - 1_
- n YJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
l DOW MEMORANDUM CONCERNING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES, ISSUE TO BE EXCLUDED, AMD DOW'S ROLE AND ~ CONTENTIONS THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P0OR QUAllTY PAGES 8ooe23o9gr KAYE.SCHOLER FIERMAN. HAYS & HANDLER l
425 PARK AVENUE
) 4 4,., Jy \\'
t
r y
h
\\
e
- 0:
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
A'IOMIC ENERGY CC!EISSION 4
In the Matter of
)
)
) y)[
)
Docket Noo. r0-329 ColiSRIERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Unita 1 and 2) 3; SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certii'/ that copies of DOW LEMORAIIT1GI CONCERHING PROCEDURAL GUIDELDIES, ISSUS 'IO BE EXCLUDED, AND T10W'S ROLE AHD CONTFJiTI0liS dated November 25, 1970 in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in.the United States mail, first cla.ss or air mail, this 30th day of 'lovember 1970:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Dr. Stuart G. Forbes Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 222 West 8th Street, Apt. 7 Columbia University School of Inv San Bernardino, California 92401 Box 33 435 West 116th Street Robert Lovenstein, Esq.
Hev York, IIev York 10027 Lovenstein and IIcuman Washin6 ton, D. C. 20036, H. W.
1100 Connecticut Avenue James P. Gleason, Esq., Alternate Chairman
's Atomic Rafety and Licensing Board Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Donahue, Ehrmantraut & Gleason Midland County Board of 11125 Hockville Pike Supervisora Rockville, Maryland 20852 623 St. Charles Utreet Midland, Michi cn 48640 8
Dr. Clark Goodman Professor of Physics Honorable Jerome Maslovaki, Esq.
University of Houston Accistant Attorney General, State 3801 Cullen Boulevard of Michigan Houston, Texas 77004 630 Seeen Story Office Euilding 525 West Ottava Dr. David B. HaIJ.
Iancing, Michi cn 43913 6
Los Alcmos Scientific Iaboratory P. O. Box 1663 Ios Alnmns, New Mexico 875%
kfd/CA) ll rut Office of the Secretary of t Commission cc: Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt Mr. Yore U. Brown y Smith s
c'. f * [
l 1
l l
b
]'s 9
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC EHERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 C0!!SUMERS POWER COMPAliY
)
)-
50-330 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
DOW iersuhANDuri UUNUENNING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES, ISSUE TO BE EXCLUDED, AND DOW'S ROLE AND CONTENTIONS This memorandum is submitted by The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") in an effort to help establish procedural guidelines for the conduct of this proceeding and to limit the categories of issues that may properly be litigated before this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
It is Dow's objective by these suggestions to assist the Board in desig71ng a program which will achieve a full and fair determination of this matter in the earliest possible time.
I PROPOSED PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES A.-
Basic Principles
~
To begin with, Dow bel'ieves it is important to
~
articulate certain fundamental principles which should guide the search for solutions to the individual problems that face the Board.
First ahong such principles, we suggest, is that the surest means to guarantee an expeditious proceeding is b
O O
for the Board to give each party sufficient assignments between pre-hearing and hearing sessions to maximize the productivity of each session.
While this principle may seem self-evident, it stands four-square against the concept that one party should await the service of inter-rogatories by the other before it has any responsibility to proceed, or. that another may await the receipt of a
- brief before its responsibilities in the proceeding' begin.
Similarly, this principle stands against the notion that interrogatories and briefs don't mix and only one or the other can be in progress at any one time.
In this regard, we believe the November 17th pre-hearing conference was an unqualified success: all,
parties were given important assignments which if properly carried out would have fully occupied their time between November 17th and December 1st.
The second fundamental principle to be followed, we believe, is that the -Board itself must keep.a firm hand
'on the proceedings, and that it would-bF sh6eTdfsaster
'to rely upon the adversaries to work out'the' conduct of
~
either discovery or the hearing.
Experience teaches that, in this type of matter equally with major court litigation, procedural techniques originally designed to_ serve the ends of justice are often employed as strategic weapons in,the L
g.
O' y
adversary arsenal, often producing the opposite end result from the one intended.
We regard the success of the November 17th conference as due in large measure to the fact that-the Board took firm control of the proceeding.
Lastly, we believe it is desirable to state at this point the ba?$e rela
.ich each party should have in this proceeding.
We regard this to be necessary at this juncture because many of the suggestions and arguments at the November 17th conference presupposed an erroneous approach to this proceeding and Dow's role in it, and a proper understanding of the role of the parties is basic to a consideration of pre-hearing.and hearing procedures.
First of all, in this regard, is the fact that the regulatory staff and the applicant are never true adversaries in an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.
This is because the applicant's proposals do not reach the stage of public hearing until they have been found acceptable by both the regulatory staff and the Advisory. Committee on Reactor Safeguards _ (" ACRS").
'As a result, it is not the regulatory staff or the applicant that determines the issues that will be considered at the public hearing.
Where the hearing is a
p=-
,-m a
e g
%)
^j uncontested, that role belongs to the Board itself: after the staff and the applicant review the application and
. indicate the facets of it which they believe most relevant to the Board's consideration, it is the Board that determines the scope and direction of the hearing as it raises matters in the application that it considers worthy of review by the applicant.
Thus, for example, in the case of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, the issue of the stretch capability of the Millstone nuclear power plant was reviewed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board following probing by the Board, although it was not originally presented to the panel by the applicant and the staff.*
In other words, while the applicant has the burden of demonstrating the safety of its proposed plant, its posture is essentially defensive and in an uncontested proceeding it is the Board that-assumes the role of questioner of the applicant's proposal if it believes the applicant's initial presentation is incomplete.
The a'pp11 cant 's role and that-of--tHhe-regulatory
' staff do not change when.the proceeding becomes.a contested one.
The regulatory staff continues to take a secondary ro'.e and the applicant remains the one who must prove the See In the Matter of the Connecticut Light and Power Company, I
CCH AEC Law Reports 1 11,255 at p.17,495-15 (19o6).
_4-
3
it makes sense to deal with those issues as soon as they are ready for disposition.
Thus, for example, if the applicant is not financially or technically qualified, we would quickly reach the end of the inquiry.
There would be no need to also consider whether the individual component systems of the plant meet Part 20 standards.
Similarly, if the plant should not be located in Midland, it will not be built as designed.
For Dow can purchase the process. steam only if the plant is located in Midland.
By the same token, if it is decided that'the applicant is qualifiej and the plant as designed could safely be located in Midland, the parties -- and Dow in particular -- would be in al position to proceed with their planning, since they would know that a plant will be built in Midland and that the remaining questions concern only, whether the plant that is finally constructep is built according to the existing plans 'cn? with ^ modifications designed to somehow make it even safer.
Frankly put, we see little to be said _in opposition to this method of procedure.
And it is far~from novel.
It
~
is explicity provided'for by Rule 42(b) of'the Federal Rules l
of Civil Procedure in regard to cases tried in the federal district courts.
Rule 42(b) states:
l "The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials Will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-m
~
claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues,
A r) v It is also recommended in the Manual for Complex and Multidistrict Litigation that was adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1969.
In a particularly apt phrase, that Manual begins with the observation that "there are no inherently protracted cases, only cases which are unnecessarily protracted by inefficient procedures and management."
The Mann:1 go:s on to list a wide variety of issues which have often been the subject of piecemeal disposition.*
Thus, for example, a question of. release or statute of limitations is often tried firs.t since it will be dispositive of.the entire c'ase.
Or trial as to a patent's validity can precede trial of an infringement claim or of a claim that the patent was misused in violation of the antitrust laws.
Similarly, the issues of liability are often separated from the question of damages, and claims arising under one law are separated from those under another law, and so on.**
And such a procedure is followed at the very ' time that the parties are continuing their discovery on remaining issues.***
Indeed, in some cases Manual For Complex and Multidistrict Litigation, p.106 et. s'eo.
Citations of cases are contained in the Manual.
- See, e.g., Metal Film Co. v. Metlon Coro.,
272 F. Supp.64 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
.e
- 17'-
m
~d the courts go even further and stay discovery on the issues which are not logically first until the potentially dis-positive issues are determined.*
In that manner, we believe that if this Board followed an issue-by-issue approach to the hearing and discovery it could considerably expedite this matter, could shorten it if it is to terminate adversely to the applicant, and could do much to permit the parties to plan.
At the very-least, we see the following isolatable issues, which would logically follow in the or' der presented:
1.
Whether the applicant and its contractor are financially qualified.
2.
Whether the applicant and its contractor are technically qualified.
' 3.' Whether the plant could be safely located in Midland if constructed as proposed, which assumes the levels of emissions claimed by the applicant and involves inquiry into the issues of population density, geological conditions and meteorological conditions.
- See, e.g., Momand v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Co, 36 F. Supp 568 (D. Mass. 1941); Di Biano v. Rederi:A/S Walship, 32'F.R.D. 41 (E.D.H.Y. 1963); Sognose Realties, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Coro, 15 F.R.D.
496 (S.D.N.Y.1954); Air King Products Co.
- v. Hazeltine Re~se arch, Inc, 10 F.R.D. 361 (E.D.N.Y. 1950).
2 g3
~
g g) w 4.
Whether the~. location of the proposed plant in proximity to the Dow chemical plant produces adverse synergistic effects.
5 Whether the maximum hypothetical accident outlinedinthe[PSARaccuratelystates the outer limits of possible danger and, if net, ;; hat that accident. is and what its consequences would be.
6.
Whether the tertiary steam system fully meets the requirements of the regulations.
7.
Whether each of the other systems or component parts of the proposed plant meets regulation standards.
Ordering Discovery and Briefing.
If this procedure is adopted, discovery also must follow an issue-by-issue approach.
In other words, assuming that the first task assigned to the opposing intervenors is the preparation and service of interrogatories upon the a'pplicant, it would make sense for the interrogatories to be submitted on an issue-by-issue basis.
After all, the intervenors will write them on an issue-by-issue basis and the applicant will answer them the same way.--
That -being so, it makes sense to have the intervenors serve each group of interrogatories as they are written, so that the applicant can begin writing 171s answers, rather than holding all
'lnterrogatories for a single submission.
In light of the fact tha't the opposing intervenors have indicated that their
(x m
u.
)
~
interrogatories will be voluminous,' requiring all inter-rogatories to be served at once will only produce unnecessary delay.
And the interrogatories can provide for any necessary document production by coupling each interrogatory with a request for the documents used in preparation of the interrogatory e.nswer or relevant thereto -- if documents are to be produced in addition to interrogatory answers.
Moreover, since opposing intervenors ' inter-rogatories deal mainly with matters which clearly fall within th.e Board's jurisdiction, they can,be drafted and served on applicant before opposing intervenors address themselves to the legal issues considered in Part II of this mem^randum.#
In that way, the applicant's staff can be framing responses to opposing intervenors' interh rogatories while the intervenors are briefing legal issues.
And, to the extent that any party would be required to do two things at the same time (i.e., prepare briefs and deal with discovery matters) 'it 'would be applicant -- which has indicated its desire foF~~an expedited' proceeding -- rather
~
.than opposing inte-rvenors.
- i. After all, opposing intervenors have already conceded that the service of interrogatories need not await the Board's disposition of the legal issues.,
9 O
q p
)
W Other Hearing Procedure.
Dow has two other procedural proposals concerning the conduct of the hearing which can be dealt with at this time:
1.
We believe the hearing could be considerably expedited if the direct testimony of witnesses _were presented in the form of prepared written statements as comtemplated by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.743(b).
The witnesses could then take the stand for any cross-examination.
2.
If pre-hearing oral depositions are taken of persons who are later witnesses at the hearing, the s
cross-examination by the party taking the deposition
. ;c r -
~~
~ -
should be restricted to matters not covered at the deposition and the deposition should be introduced and accepted into evidence in place of cross-examination.
To accomplish all of the objectives set forth above and to assure that all parties proceed apace, we respectfully suggest that the Board designate at the December 1 conference explicit assignments to be performed by each party according to a prescribed timetable and that it schedule - at that time a series of hearing and pre-hearing sessions' extending over at least the next several months, occurring at no more than bi-weekly intervals.
e
,9-S e,-
q-
'w
.)
II ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROCEEDING AS A MATTER OF LAW It is Dow's position that neither this proceeding
~
nor the Atomic Energy Commission itself was designed to cope with all of the various matters that may be involved in the creation and operation of a nuclear generating plant.
Rather, the overall regulatory scheme involves a multitude of different governmental bodies.
- Permits, licenses or other approvals of one form or another must be obtained, for example, from the Federal Power Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of the Interior, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and from numerous state and local agencies.
~
Thus, for example, Dow believes that environmental questions such as thermal and air pollution are beyond the scope of this proceeding and outside the Atomic Energy Act, not because environmental questions are irrelevant, but because
~
.the Atomic Energy Commission'is only one of many federal,
. state and local agencies which are involved with reviewing Consumers" Power's application and the resolution of environmental i'
questions was placed elsewhere.
In this regard, Consumers Power's July 24, 1970 Environmental Report lists six different state 4'
.I 22 -
t r
p y.
A/
/
agencies
- and seven distinct local governmental authorities **
from which it has or is required to obtain approvals on environmental matters.
_ AJul the proof positive that even the AEC did not delegate all of its area of responsibility to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is the fact that byproducts licens-ing is sometning wn'ich this panel was not convened to consider.
The issues which Dow believes should be excluded from this proceeding are those which have not been assigned to this Board.. For the most part they are issues which either (1) fall within the province of an agency other than the Atomic Energy Commission, or (2) are Atomic Energy Commission issues which the Commission has not-given this-Board the authority to deal with.
The particular issues involved and the reasons why Dow believes they should be' State of Michigan: Department of Aeronautics Department of Public Health Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Section, Division of Occupational Health, Department of
?"Public' Health Public Service Commission, Department of-Commerce' Water Resources Commission, Department of 2.
Natural Resources Midland County:
Board of Supervisors Drain Commissioner Road Commissioner Midland Township:
Building Inspector Township Board Zoning Board of Appeals
~
City of Midland:
City Commission.
-j
rR ij
.)
excluded by the Board are as follows:
A.
With regard to The Petition of the EDF.
None of the environmental issues raised in the
. petition of the EDF is properly before this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, since the AEC's jurisdiction was not
' expanded by the Environmental Protection Act and, on the issue of he' alt.h and safety, is limited to effects arising from radioactive emissions.
This matter will be the.- ssbject of a separate legal memorandum that Dow will submit to coincide with the submission by the EDF of its memorandum, which the Board set for on or about January 7th, 1971.
B.
With resoect to the Petition of the Saginaw Valley Groun of Intervenors.
1.
The contentions in Paragraohs 24, 71 and 74.
The contentions set forth in the above numbered paragraphs of the Petition of the Saginaw Valley Group of intervenors are not properly before this Board because the regulations' under which the Board is to act clearly provide that the Board can issue a construction permit although not all systems in the. proposed facility have b.een designed, and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the validity of such regulations.
The regulations themselves are crystal clear
\\
e a
2 4'f--
C
)
on this point.
10 C.F.R. S 50.35(a) provides:
"When-an applicant has not supplied initially all of the technical information required to complete the application and support the issuance of a construction permit which approves all proposed design features, the Commission may issue a construction permit if the Commission finds that (1) the applicant has described the proposed design of the facility, including, but not limited
.to, the principal-architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public; (2) such further technical or design information as.may be required to complete the safety analysis, and which can reasonably be left for later consideration, will be supplied in the final safety analysis report; (3) safety features or components, if any, which require research and develop-ment have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and develop-ment program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components; and that (4) on the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonable assurance that, (1) such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of construction of the proposed facility, and (ii) taking into consideration i
the site criteria contained in Part 100 of l
this chapter, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed i-location without undue risk to the_ health--;
and safety of the,public'"
~
The predecessor to 10 C.F.R. $ 50.35, which
[
also permitted the issuance of construction permits prior to submission of all technical information required in the application, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Power p
Heactor Development Co.
International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).
The court -_
U rS
.^
- )
found that the regulation was "a valid exercise of the rule-making power conferred upon the AEC by statute.
367 U.S. at 407 The Commission's regulations permitting a construction license to issue even though all systems are not fully designed is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the fact that engineering must often await on-the-scene experience.
And it also assures that the plant can be adapted to incorporate the latest in ever-changing technology.
The Supreme Court explicity alluded to this point in upholding the regulation:
"[N]uclear reactors are fast developing
~
and fast changing.
What is up-to-date now may not, probably will not, be accept-able tomorrow.
Problems which seem insup-erable now may be solved tomorrow, perhaps in the very process of construction itself.
We see no reason why we should not accord to the Commission's interpretation of its own regulation and governing statute that respect which is customarily given to a practical administrative construction of a disputed provision." (367 U.S. at 408.)
2.
The contentions in Paragraohs 27, 42-47 and 50.
The contentions contained in the above numbered paragraphs of the Saginaw V' alley Group's Petition should be excluded because they challenge the standards of Part 20 of the regulations and demand that the' Board go beyond Part 20 of the regulations.
This the Board cannot do.
The Atomic Energy Commission explicity-held in 9.
.g
O' T'J the Calvert Cliffs case that an Atomic Safety and Licensipg Board's inquiry into a proposed nuclear power plant's effect on the health and safety of the public is limited to the standards found in Part 20 of the Atomic Energy-Commission's regulations and that the Board cannot go beyond those regulations for the reasons urged by the opposing-intervenors.*
The dispositive character of this decision is enhanced by the fact that it was rendered by the Commission in a matter that was not appe.aled by any of the parties,for the purpose of reversing what was only a dictum of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The AEC stated:
"[T]he Commission's licensing regulations establish the standards for reactor construction permit determinations ; and
~
... the findings in proceedings such as the instant one must be made in accordance with those regulations.
Further, it should be clear that our licensing regulations -- which are general in tneir application and which are considered and adopted in public rule making proceedings wherein the Commission can draw on the views of all interested persons -- are not subject to amendment by ' boards in individual adjudicatory proceedings. (CCH-AEC Reports at.p. 17,701-5).
~
In the matter of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co,(Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant),CCH AEC Law Meports 1 11,F/8 (1969).
4 _
(?
^
3
_Paragraohs' 53-71, 77 and 73.
The contentions in the above numbered paragraphs deal with issues raised in the Environmental Protection Act, and other environmental considerations, and should be excluded for the same reasons that the contentions of the EDF should be excluded.
III DOW'S ROLE AND CONTENTIONS IN THIS PROCEEDING Dow has made it absolutely clear that it favors --
rather than opposes -- the proposed nuclear facility.
It's role, therefore, is not that of challenger or questioner.
Unlike the opposing intervenors or the Board, it does not fall to Dow to delineate possible areas where the applicant's proposal should be reviewe,d in depth.
Moreover,.Dow has made clear that it has intervened j
in this proceeding only because it was aware that this proceeding would be a contested one.
Had it not been so,
.Dow would have. relied dn the Board and the applicant fo'r a thorough review of the proposal.
Dow would have entered a limited appearance to make known its position oh the merits but it would not have sought a continuing role in the proceeding.
In other words, Dow believes that the role of proving the safety of the proposed nuclear plant is -- as alwaysl-- the applicant's.
~
I C;
O
' Third, Dow has said that its_orimary reason for intervening is its belief that it can be helpful to the Board in developing procedures for expediting this proceeding.
Dow indicated in its Petition to Intervene and at t'he November 17th converence that the procedural timetable of this proceeding is a matter of critical importance Lo it in view of the fact tnat a delay in reaching a conclusion-in this matter would adversely affect Dow and the Midland community even if a construction
~
permit were eventually to issue.
It is because of this concern that this memorandum has dealt at length with procedural questions and how the issues before this Board can properly be simplified and narrowed.
All of this, however, is not to say that Dow will not participate in the Board's consideration of the merits of the applicant's proposal.
Of course, once the opposing intervenors and the Board have outlined the issued to be seriously controverted, it will be Consumers Power --
as the applicant -- that must prove the safety.of the proposed
~~
plant.
Dow does not pretend to have expertise in the construct $on or operation of nuclear power plants and'it,
does not intend to duplicate the role of Consumers Power at this hearing.
On the other hand, Dow does have significant expertise in radioactivity and biochemistry.
Dow employs over 1,900 research scientists at Midland, which has one of 29 -
n e.
G J
the greatest concentrations of research Ph.D's in the world.
Dow's biochemistry laboratory is one of the finest in the country.
It also operates at Midland one of the finest radio-chemistry laboratories in the country, which since 1966 has had its own research atomic reactor.
Indeed, Dow was one of the pioneers in private radio-activity research and in the use of radioactivity in spectrometry.
Dow has indicated that it has satisfied itself that tuc proposed facility can safely be located in Midland.
And Dow has been deeply concerned with the quality of the process steam to be supplied to Dow from the nuclear plant.
And it is Dow's chemical plant that is located adjacent to the site of the proposed nuclear facility, so that it is Dow that can be most helpful in determining whether the proximity of the chemical and nuclear plants have any adverse synergistic effe c'ts.
Therefore, while Dow does not now know which of the issues raised by the opposing intervenors in their Petition.will-become truly contest 5d issues, Dow will be prepared, Lf appropriate, to introduce evidencs at least in support of the following contentions:
1.
That the proposed nuclear facility can be safely located.in Midland insofar as conce"ns population density, meteorological conditions and geological conditions.
p 8
'd
)
2.
That the construction and monitoring of the tertiary steam system, through which process steam will be supplied to Dow, will assure that the radioactivity in the steam will even be below the level of the Lake Huron make-up water.
3 That the proximity of the proposed nuclear facility to Dow's chemical plant will not result in any harmful synergistic effects.
In addition, Dow may wish to introduce evidence with regard to other subjects which hereafter are put in issue.
IV CONCLUSION For all the reasons considered above, Dow respectfully requests that the Board adopt pre-hearing and
^
hearing procedures along the lines se.t forth in Part I of this memorandum and that it exclude the' legal issues raised in Part II of this memorandum.
_~
~Z~
Dated: New York, New York November 25, 1970 Respectfully submitted KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS
& HANDLEE By Trial Counsel to The T'
Dow Chemical Company
G o
Of Counsel Milton R. Wessel.
Allen Kezsbom and William A. Groening, Jr.
James II. O'Connor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t
I, Milton R. Wessel, Esq., a member of the firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, trial counsel to The Dow Chemical Company in the above matter, hereby certify-in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712(e)(2) that on November 25, 1970, I served a copy of the above Memorandum, by postage prepaid mail, upon the attorneys for each of the parties, whose names and addresses are listed below:
Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Smith & Brooker 703 Washington Avenue Bay City, Michigan Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
. Regulatory Staff United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 O
W e
32 -
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery 111 West Monroe Street-Chicago, Illinois 60603 James A. Kendall, Esq.
Currie & Kendall 135 North Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan Anthony Z.
Hoisman, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kessler 1910 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 2J d
~
Milton R. Wessel.
o One m*
g G
1 l
l i
l'
..