ML19331A286
| ML19331A286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1977 |
| From: | Pribila L DOW CHEMICAL CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160876 | |
| Download: ML19331A286 (5) | |
Text
1
.h 4'
g$
b 1
- k
%oO U f,)< <l f
9
' ?..
.hl rm e.s.: "
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Aopeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
M (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
DOW RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF MOTION THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION P00R QUALITY PAGES This memorandum is submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 30ard (Appeal Board) in opposition to the NRC Staff's Motion-for Directed Certification of the Staff's " Motion for Censure of Myron M.
Cherry" now pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board).
The Staff contends that "Without certification unusual delay will continue and the Staff and other parties will encounter further unusual expenses, and the public interest will suffer."
(StaffMotion, page 2)
The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) contends that to the contrary, certification threatens to int,erfere with the orderly process of the Licensing Board's deliberations, and thereby to result in delay and harm to the parties to the present proceeding and to the public.
Thisproceedinghasbeencharacterizedalmostfromitsincip-tion by the most bitter charges and countercharges of pr)fessional misconduct and impropriety, directed at substantially a'l the parties ano their counsel.
For example, early in the present proceeding charges of professionc1 misconduct were made with regard to the preparation of 8007160 h h
~
2 m
the so-called " Temple testimony."
Those charges are also still pending before the Licensing Board.
The extensive memoranda and exhibits which were submitted by all parties at that time were only a portion of the volume of oral testimony, written submissions, arguments, motions, applications and the like submitted in connection with these ajd_ hominem matters.
The inevitable result has been to delay the conclusion of tha suspension proceeding and to cloud the substantive issues which the Licensing Board must decide.
It continues to be of critical importance to Dow that this matter be brought to a conclusion at the earliest reasonable time.. For that reason, Dow has throughout opposed any action by,anjr party which may result in unnecessary delay.
For that reason, Dod opposes the present Staff Motion.
Dow has urged the propriety of its own conduct throughout this litigation.
However, as one of the litigants, it has made no af_ hominem charges and has avoided expressing any conclusions f
with regard to the propriety of the professional conduct of others--in the adversary context, the conduct of counsel is necessarily a matter for decision by an arbiter and not a litigant.
Dow has no knowledge with regard to charges of professiona,1 misconduct in connection with matters not before the present Licensing Board, including specifically the ECCS issue.
To the extent-that con-duct in connection with such other matters calls for professional discipline, Dow urges that such disciplinary action' be taken ind;gendent of this case.
There are ample other forums available.
With respect to the alfeged misconduct before the Lice'nsing Board in this proceeding, Dow urges that the Licensing Board be per-mitted to make its determination in such manner as it sees fit. The Licensing Board has observed the conduct of all counsel during this-pro-ceeding and it is aware that this has been a hard fought and sometihes i
bitter litigation, replete with calumny and invective and sometimes even expletives.
The Licensing Board has also observed the nuances of ex-pression, timing, attitude and posture which acccmpanied this conduct
s 3
and which cannot be reflected in the cold written record.
As a result, Dow believes the Licensing Board is the best forum to decide the issues relating to the misconduct of attorneys in this proceeding and should '
be allowed to do so to the extent the Licensing Board deems appropriate.
The Appeal Board should also be aware that findings of fact are presently being' prepared and will be submitted to the Licensing Board shortly.
Some of these submissions may deal with the issues of attorney misconduct, permitting the Licensing Board to decide all related matter 5 in comprehensive and reflective. fashion.
Not all
~
members of the Licensing Board were present at all times, and such an opportunity.to consider may be essential to proper decision.
For the reasons set forth above, Dow urges the Appeal Board to deny directed certification of the NRC Staff's Motion and to psrmit this matter to proceed to orderly concl'sion, as determined by the u
discretion of the Licensing Board.
Respectfully submitted, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
.1 A
f)
IU, Eu L. W. Pribila Michigan Division Legal Department 47 Building Midland, MI 48640 DATED:
Jun~e 15,1977 t
gMi %
\\
%,.i.,
f y
M g.12 0 FB I f[
B3
- Sb[h..
k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l'f M
- cW licn[
BEF0P.E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
-)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that compies of 'DOW RESP 0flSE TO NRC STAFF MOTI0ft FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION" dated June 15, 1977 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 15th day of June,1977:
Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20535 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1 IBM Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60611 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
~~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Rosso, Esq.
Board Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603
1 m
i
. William J. Olmstead, Esq.
_Oocketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, 0.C.
20555
- [a Ifi 0
i.]
'L. W. Pribila e
k me 5