ML19331A705

Motion for Filing Encl Written Comments on ASLB Oral Argument Re Saginaw Intervenors' Request to Reopen Record. Comments Essential for Decision & Will Not Delay Proceeding

ML19331A705
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/02/1974
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331A707	List: ML19331A705 ML19331A711
References
ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8007210705
Download: ML19331A705 (5)

Text

_

t-9 ' ~

,w M i r,\

/N v., .~

_.V-u N-

/t7 3 * ". *,;,t fwJ m r i n- /, c . -

.acember 2, 1974 h7j bc e' ~v, ' .e-

\#a . W"'

g -A-s b.i.** g

• L .1-:

. ,., . D :. - .a. ,,n. r.s .,l C u-.,.-

wn.,-.,

u O c....u==. 7. ..,., r.:.t : ..'

\q.K g gs

..p p . . q.,

.. .g..s, -

n p, ". . ne g.r.r.rmy .3.;D. L .r C.r a .cA.. gu n C.A. R D

~ b'/ v ii ,

W aa lt. tar of: ) .-

...._m, ,

) Docket Wos. CPPR-81 .

. . . ~ ..._.....e-..,.

s ePcR o,s,

) -

alana - ' - : .- 1 , r. ' '

) Show Cause r~...a

. . :. . .. ..:..... .n.,....,

\

32.inaw tanors have earlier filed a action tc

_ . . , . _ _ .-y .. .- ... --.-

-.a.m i

.........:.. . . . - , ... , . m. . . . - .

,...,,..,_,-,n-.....

. . . _ . . .- .a n... .

.2. e , . . , . .. . . _ . ._...- . .

.. . - - 3 e n - . . _ .'. . . .' . . ,' . ' . ~ .

4 .. # o ... m- "- _4 c 'i ,' 'e c c- i s c_4 cn .' ,- i * *

. .. er f- lef: .c: of the show cause he. ring held in

1... -ing the sur .er of 1974 Af ter the Appeal Board's

.:..slon in ALAS-235 .Cansumers Power Company, Midland, RAI-l 's , 5 3 October 17, 1974) which called the ,carties' and T. . :7.3.; ng Boarf'> c.tention to the potential and' probable reopen an, con-

ant. ia  :.e r i t. a:_ eaginaw,s petition to

. r the initial dec ;, .cn and (in presumed response to that

. -:.sionJ tne Licenc ng Board set the matter down for oral

.;;cment in Ch2.cago, ilinois. The first date for oral argument s

entac;.vely decar nc.ed in a conference call established q tha p.rties v. ' - Licensing 2 card. In that conferencc 80072A0 O .

mu s.4

e

't .

call, cpunsel f r Sc.g:'.:w explained the circumstances.cf his

Sligstitn th he i.- ;en during the tentative scheduling

nc r.aquestJe an ad;c.'uament of the oral argument. The Licon-sing Board anc tne pa.:ies agree, and oral argument was set ct a date when Sagic. 4 s counsel had returned from! Europe. ,

1 Since openidg his office in September, 1974, Saginaw's

~

c;nsel has ~

.c t cecc c_;le to fica a oermanent secretary and 'n:

c to rely :pon ce.;c- ary service secretaries, no one of wnicr.

- ud e concina r. - r - re nar two days. As a result- irr

• . C %1"a r.e l *fl O3 '

t s O f 3dr' .0 3'.4 's COMUSG1 a re in t S 2 ~2 n0t fir

' - r '- 'f r r. , d _ n c e -

a-d tha - is a back1cc of correspc-denr

. This situa:1....,_d to Saginaw's ccuncel's ansanca fr:c

. :::1 :.rguman: ; ;.. : m , h a S 112. 2 -2d :he e r:1 cegumon; as; :

.;;ur on iuasday fo lowing tre Monday it was se:. as a resu.,:,

C L 7in L! ' :aunsal was not in attendance at the-cral_ argument.

Tha transcript of the oral argument reveals that at the

.cnsing Scard's direction one.or more parties attempted to Mhile I do n t doubt.that?

t sacinre's ceunca'. 's e f fice.

'a occurrod , Sagirv+'c ecunsel received no message frem any:nt- ,

4

morning, although the receptionist at the' office'had in-

~

c.ted tha: seme:na ":d called and inquired about'my whereab:::s

- left no ressage and did not identify himself. In fact, the

- -ning_of-the-oral Mr ument,--Saginaw's counsel was ill, in

~r. with-tne flu. and did not reach his office until~ noon that

. ,. As a' result of t'eginning preparation for-what ~Saginaw's

- >nsel believed to be the oral argument the following. day,

sn:w'r counsel diccc.*ered his error.and immediately tried re reach the federal reurt but the hearing was already over.

3 - fco .not2 in int m'.ed for explanation only -and is natt meant

chift the burden of failure to attend the oral argument

.cn obviausly.is clo rly chargeable to.Saginaw's counsel,

...c.ough Saginaw'c coansal believes it is excusable neglect.- '

lac 1further point, during the oral argument several of the m e

. s Saginaw's c unsel harchy coves the Licensing Board 50 permit the filing ;Z che attachcd ccmments concerning oral argument ind conders the following grounds:

l. His abarce from th cral argum?nt was not'intan-tional and was based upon a mistaken understanding of the date el cral.crgument;

2. I.mmedit ely upon diccevering his error, Saginaw'n

ensel teleghened rotnsel for Consumers Power and then the

7.cinc 3 card to ca.2er his a po '. og . as teli es 7" 9;"cet

-itate  ??70rtunim? _o submit inferrn:icn to acci;t the Li-

~'-~

Jcard in ita dcliba"atdr"c;

3. ..ftar amiang reviewed the transcript, Saginav'.s

-- - :' ' '. i c o c h - . : ::= nanus by Sagincu ( u.e ;a.c y th;;h

- 21aod the issue) are essentiil to a decision on this cause:

.: siac: ene Licensing Board has an independent obligation to Ec _,ess '.na ratters in light of the petition, the comments cf

,,finaw's counsel will only serve to assist, not delay, the

ceedings;

4. No par:y is disadvantaged by the. imposition of t.:se comments, since they deal with. issues of which the other narties indicated that Saginaw's motion should be'dismiscedlfor

,1riety of reasons including the assertion that Saginaw's

../. sal villfully-did .at attend the hearing-and that this' ca.rasented some pattern of failure to attend hearings. Ob-uly tna f ailuro te attend the~ oral argument was not willful, 4..c there is no pattern of failing to attend hearings. As the

. nnsing 3 card will ruzall, the absence of Saginaw from the anov cause hearing was preordained based upon the fact that tne Commission did not see fit to grant attorneys' fees or c<penses (even tc find a QA expert) in connection with the show-cause hearing.

-3

- = . ~.

4 parties.hava-direct :nd cxtensive knowledge and also Jeal with documents which crir_:d e with them and with which tha/ are ramiliar:

S. On'the face of this record a failure to receive Jaginaw's counsel's ccmnents would be tantamount to t,he'Lican-

, sing Board acquiescing in a cover-up of irr;rtant fasts engi-accred (wh ther intentionally or by conscious parallelism)

- :ce other >+rt'cc Thua Consumers and Bechtel ebviously

, or :na impondanc 'awsuit, yet thep did no: tall the Lic:'-

• T cetre Of the ir::.'nfing filing 'and th y continuod their efter the.1;Jcui

._,.a wac :11cd. Indead tac tranz:rict.:i

,ral . e rg.ccan c ' f. A c : lose s that the Regula: cry 3:af f .ns in--

.. ;_ :12 law;u_u ca the day of its filing, yet 2t did ac;

2el any ocliganicn~to review the suit and tender the fact of

. :s film. ; to' the Licensing Board. As it has been through the u of the history of this proceeding, the Saginaw Interveners-w:th little or no funds for costs or attorneys' fees) have

" re n' '.t'.ng Cor.:urars Power in the ccurse of d.is p:cccel

' by vi'rtue of its constantly ferreting out' errors;

~

5. We should also point out that these comments are a nng filed by Saginaw's counsel (as it would have been at the

'. argument)- in the public interest .and- without funds since

-t e Saginav Intervonorn have long since depleted.their original usources. Saginaw's counsel is submitting these comments not

- Y 4

4+...

v, n .1,;. u.c. a...,

. . o.

,. s

...s .. . - . .

, e,_ . y . .ca u .T ,a -

e 'n e ' e .:. . ~ ' . ,

a .' _ o  %., c u-, .- ..~, e.

ne believes n.z..: l a ,. s cracticinc..

. .cercre e n e .,.:oulc m,nerc v.

U .:.nission . ave an o;;_gation to maintain a continued vigil in c:nnection *;ca a.. , ltcato -'/ p oceedings. On the basis of var :evic.w c . ene s % _.icial oral argument which too.< place,

2. , 4 , ..

3

, . .e. e,,v.n . . . ., n 1_ 44,. 2. .f ,.3.,. ..n.eg ,.o w r. . C. p.., e g. S h. . .mw u u. g. e y 1 C e n S 4 n c o,.- ,. ..s; ..:.s .1 .-

s. . w . 3_ ,d

. :..e, s 4ce

. h1S 3

. e.,. '61 . n' o,.,..,. a .

.c,,'..

u. 4 .r4 :., .J w

.....,,w .w.o..3ewC

.c.._'.4' ...~.

'., . s; . .

. .. _ e...u..u4 3 .,. ;.

L. m. s.

U3 a;. w w .-

7 o_s.. . . . u. n a ..v ..,.. m, .e .... a , .,. . ,1 c-.

. s _ _. .2 . - - . .. _

. ..u. o_ _.

- .. . 4_a., m. .._... . . . .

i'E* SFO 'C . . ;r the above reasonsi the Saginav c.rou

• ?

,s.. y. w. .r ._...O,

~.. o a . ..

.v .1' A u, .... . ' . . _.3}.3 , ,__

. - ...a. r ,,. . g

..c...

.,2 s  : .- g . .. a. . .a O

7.C S y~'O *.' #. " .' _l ',/ ,

,/

.s I. 'jy!/ 7,, fn --

v 1 l '.

Attor".cy for Saginaw Intervencrs 7

h

,n

, 41. b .,.w, .- ,;,

m. p,,, ,

a .

• g 4

. .. 3 ,

..b".,,-

)O L.4 I e

9

-S-

.