ML19329F481
| ML19329F481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1972 |
| From: | Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006300681 | |
| Download: ML19329F481 (5) | |
Text
__
'4 s
(3
?Y s_._.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/
o In the Matter of
)
4
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
~50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO "MAPLETON INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF BOARD ORDER DATED DECEMBER 22, 1971" In a document dated December 29, 1971, Mapleton Intervenors filed some introductory remarks followed by 25 numbered paragraphs ostensibly in response to that part of the Board's Order of December 22, 1971, ent itled
" Applicant's Environmental Report" (p.13).
Applicant, Consumers Power Company, hereby responds to Mapleton's pleading as follows:
1.
The Board's Order expressly required the Intervenors,
on or before December 31, 1971, to " serve and file in writing with respect to Applicant's Environmental Report *
(iii) their requests for discovery which they believe is warranted by the issues they are raising."
The Mapleton docu-ment contains no request for discovery.
The Mapleton Intervenors thereby impliedly concede that they require no discovery with respect to the Applicant's Environmental Report, and any future request for such discovery will be out of time.
-The Board should so order.
THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS N
P0OR QUAllTY PAGES ' -8006800[g$
i
\\
-\\
'4.
()
f') '
a 0
7 2.
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Mapleton's " Response" merely " reaffirm" documents previously filed in this pro-ceeding.
These. documents have been the subject of prior proceedings-in this hearing and of Board rulings.
The record, including the Board's Order of December 22, with respect to those documents speaks for itself.
We see no need.to clutter the record further except to point out that Mapleton Intervenors have failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Board under its Order of August 26 and its Order of December 22, to present offers of proof or written testimony, other than the testimony referred to in paragraph 3 of Mapleton's response to which Applicant will, at the proper time, make such responses or answer as may be appropriate.
3.
The expressed purpose of Section 5 of the Board's Order of December 22, 1971, was
"...to encourage all parties to exercise their best efforts in good faith to refine the contested environmental issues in this proceeding, with a view towards disposing of those which are ripe-for hearing oor other action at the
- rliest reasonable time."
Consequently, it required the opposing intervenors to advance " contentions" identifying "the alleged inadequacies" in Applicant's Environmental Report and statements of " positions" on environ-mental " issues" with. enough detail and specificity to permit N
\\,
N N
~
~
the formulation of controverted issues and enable the Board to fulfill its responsibilities to keep this proceeding moving.
Mapleton Intervenors have once again failed to carry 4
out the mandate of this Board to make relevant statements of contentions and positions which are sufficiently specific to be meaningful.
On the contrary, the statements contained in Paragraphs 4 to 25 inclusive, represent little more than ultimate conclusions.
They do not even attempt adequately to specify the grounds for those conclusions.
4.
In its Order of January 6, 1972, the Board, directing itself to a request for delay made by the Saginaw Intervenors, said at page 2 :
"... there are limits to the concessions which can properly be made.
Unlike law suits the consequences of delay and post-ponement of this type of proceeding are potentially very serious If Counsel are to continue to participate in more than one case at a time they simply must be prepared to make arrangements for handling the case load."
The substance of these remarks should not be limited to tactics openly directed at " delay and postponement."
They should also ext'end to pleadings which, although ostensibly responsive to Board orders,are clearly merely repetitious, irrelevant or wholly lacking in required specificity.
There may be some dispute as to which technique more closely approach'es con-tumacity; however the obstructive effect is the same in either Case.
.,,ww.
3.,.
-s----e
(b.
D
.s
./
In view of the foregoing, we urge the Board to take one of,two courses.
It may consider it appropriate in the circumstances to give the Mapleton Intervenors a severely limited period of time to file, but this time with adequate specificity and support:
" (i) their contentions identifying the alleged inadequacies in such report, if any ; [and]
" (ii) their positions as to those issues for which they believe sufficient data is presented;..."
Alternatively, the Board has adequate cause to rule that the Mapleton Intervenors have now waived'their opportunity to make any objections to the Applicant's Environmental Report.
Respectfully submitted, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN & REIS 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 0'
A
~~ h Dated:
January 10,1972 By
'N.h b &
Harold F. Reis Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel, Harold P. Graves
- Robert Lowenstein John K. Restrick Richard G. Smith
- em O
rh UNITED STATES OF AMERIC F' r
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
~
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 4
'(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Response to 'Mapleton Intervenors' Response to Certain Portions of Board Order Dated December 22, 1971'", dated January 10, 1972, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 10th day of January, 1972.
~
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Kaye,.Scholer,'Fierman, Hays Columbia University School of Law and Handler Box 38, 435 West 116th Street 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10027 New York, New York 10022 Dr. Clark Goodman
' James N.
O'Connor, Esq.
Professor of Physics The Do'w Chemical Company University of Houston 2030 Dow Center 3801 Cullen Boulevard Midland, Michigan 48640 Hous ton, Texas 77004 Myron M.
Cherry, Esq.
Dr. David B.
Hall 109 N.
Dearborn Street Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Suite 1005 P.O. Box 1663
. Chicago, Ill.
60602 Los Alamos, New Mexico
.Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman William J.
Gins ter, Esq.
Atomi.c. Safety and Licensing
' Suite 4
. Board Panel Merrill Building.
U.S. A'tomic Energy Commission Saginaw, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C.
20545 James A. Kendall,'Esq.
~'Irving Like,'Esq.
135 N.
Saginaw Road 200 West Main Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Babylon, New York 11702
+
Antho'ny Z. Roisman, Esq.
Stanley'T. Robinson, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman and Ke.ssler
.Chidf, Public Proceedings Branch 1910 N Street,.N.W-
~~
Washington, D'.C.
20036
' ' Office of"the Secretary of the Commission
~
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20545 m
U.S. Atomic. Energy Commission x
V. Washington, D.C.
20545
~
~
/Y.%U h a
~
~
/. Harold F.
Reis j
.