ML19330A165
| ML19330A165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1972 |
| From: | Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150931 | |
| Download: ML19330A165 (4) | |
Text
-__
.- Z..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
Docket No b O-32 G CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
and 50-330
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO LETTER FROM MAPLETON INTERVENORS RELATING TO STATEMENTS OF DR. GYSEL AND DR. HOLCOMB In a letter to the Board dated August 8, 1972, Mapleton Intervenors purportedly objected "to the receipt into evidence of Dr. Gysel's statement of July 8, 1972."
In fact, however, the letter requested alternative forms of relief:
either that the Gysel statement not be admitted in evidence or, if it should be so admitted, the receipt in evidence of "Dr. Helcomb's statement of July 17, 1972 in response to Dr. Gysel' r state-ment On August 18, 1972, the AEC Regulatory Staff filed an answer in which it took the position that there would be no prejudice if both statements were received in evidence "as an alternative to cross-examination of Dr. Gysel."
The Staff went on to state that if the Mapleton Intervenors should demonstrate any prejudice ~which would result from such procedure, "we would have no objection to a one-day hearing (whichmightbehelbYin New York City) to give Mapleton the opportunity to conduct its cross-examination of Dr. Gysel."
847.isog3 /
Since the Mapleton Intervenors have themselves offered the admission of Dr. Holcomb's statement in evidence as an alternative' to the admission of Dr. Gysel's statement without cross-examination, it is clear that they regard that alternative as an e iequate substitute for any conceivable prejudice which they might otherwise suffer by virtue of the lack of opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Gysel.
Nor does applicant object to the receipt of Dr. Holcomb's statement in evidence as an alternative to reopening the hearing for cross-examination of Dr. Gysel.
In addition, in its letter of August 22, 1972, Dow Chemical expresses the view that "no significant prejudice could rasult from taking the written materials for what they are worth."
In sum, no party to the proceeding regards as prejudicial the receipt in evidence of both the Gysel and the Holcomb state-ments without cross-examination.
In these circumstances, any additional hearing is clear _y unnecessary, and the applicant i
strongly opposes any such hearing.
Respectfully submitted, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN & REIS 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Dated:
August 24, 1972 By /
44 A Harold F.
Reis Attorneys for Applicant Of Counsel, Consurt. ors Power Company Harold P. Graves John K. Restrick
- Richard G. Smith
UMITED STATES OF AME~'CA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISblON IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSG1ERS POWER COMPANY
)
and 50-330
~
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Letter from Mapleton Intervenors Relating to Statements of Dr. Gysel and Dr.
Holcomb", dated August 24, 1972, in the above captioned matter have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the Uni.ed States mail, first class or airmail, this 24th day of August, 1972.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., C51 airman Dr. David B. Hall Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Alamos Scientific Columbia University School of Law Laboratory Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street P. O.
Box 1663 New York, New York 10027 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Honorable Curtis B.-Beck Regulatory Staff Counsel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Atomic Energy. Commission State of Michigan Washington, D.
C.
20545 630 Seven Story Office Bldg.
525 West Ottawa William A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 43913 James N. O'Connor, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Company Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esq.
' 2030 Dow Center Berlin, Roisman & Kessler Midland, Michigan 48640 1712 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Myron M.
Cherry r Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
i Suite 1005 Currie and Kendall Chicago, Illinois 60602 135 North Saginaw Road j
Midland, Michigan 48640 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Of fice of' Consolidated National Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Intervenors Allen Kersbon, Esq.
AEC ECCS Hearings J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
8120 Woodmont Avenue Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Bethesda, Maryland 200L4 and Handler 425 Park Avenue Honorable William H. Ward New York, New York 10022 Assistant Attorney General State of Kansas William J. Ginster, Esq.
Topeka, Kansas 66612 Suite 4, Merrill Bldg.
Saginaw, Michigan 48602 Dr. Clark Goodman Professor of Physics ~
Irving Like, Esq.
University of Houston Reilly, Like L.Schneider 3801 Cullen Boulevard 200 West Main Strcet Houston, Texas 77004 Babylon, New York 11702
2-Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Atomic Energy Conunission Washington, D. C.
20545 Mr. Frank W. Karas
- Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Office of the Secretary of the Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 T
6
/' hiY$
Harold F.
Reis l
E S
._