ML19331A705
| 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: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8007210705 | |
| Download: ML19331A705 (5) | |
Text
_
t-9
~
,w M i r,\\
/N
_.V-v.,
.~
u N-
/t7 3 * ".,;,t fwJ bc e' ~v,
.e-n /, c. -
. m r i -
.acember 2, 1974 h7j W"'
\\#aA b.i.**
u O c....
- 7...,.,
g - -s r.:.t :..'
g L..,.,. D :. -
..,, r.s,l C u-.,.-.,-.,
1-:
a n.
wn u==.
\\q.K g gs
.p p.. q.,
.g..s, n p, ".. n g.r.r.rmy.3.;D. L.r C.r a.cA.. g n C.A. R D
~ b'/
W e
u v
ii aa lt. tar of:
)
)
Docket Wos. CPPR-81
...._m,
..._.....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 ','
'e c c-i s c_4 c.',- i *
- i n
... 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
- ant. ia
- .e r i t. a:_ eaginaw,s petition to reopen an, con-
. 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
- entac;.vely decar nc.ed in a conference call established s
q tha p.rties v.
' - Licensing 2 card.
In that conferencc 80072A0 O
mu.4 s
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 t sacinre's ceunca'. 's e f fice.
Mhile I do n t doubt.that?
'a occurrod, Sagirv+'c ecunsel received no message frem any:nt-
- morning, although the receptionist at the' office'had in-4
~
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
._,.a efter the.1;Jcui 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 of the history of this proceeding, the Saginaw Interveners-u 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+...
, e,_. y..c u.T,a e 'n e ' e... ~ '.,
a.' _ o
%., c u,.. ~, e.
,. s v, n.1,;.
u.c. a...,
.s o.
a 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,
- u. g. e y 1 C e n S 4 n c
- 2., 4,,.
.e.
e,, n..., n 1_
44,
- 2..f,.3.,.
..n.eg
,.o r.. C p, e g.
S h...mu v.
w w
3 3
e.,.
'61 n' o,.,..,.
a.c,,'..
4.r
,.J u.
4 :.
w s
.e, 4ce h1S
..:.s.1.-
o,.-,. s;
- s.. w.
3_,d w.
3.,. ;.
... ~.
.....,,w
..o. 3 e w C... _ e...u..u4
. _ m. s.
U a;. w w.-
3
.c.._'.4' L.
7
. s;..
o_... u. n a..,..
m,.e
..u. o_
.. a,.,..,1 c-.
.2 s..
..v s _ _.
4_a.,
m.
- i'E* SFO 'C.. ;r the above reasonsi the Saginav c.rou
..... '.. _.3}.3
?
.1' A u,
._...O,
,s. y w r
~.. o a...
.v
..c...
.- g... a.....
. -. a. r,,.. g
.,2
.a s
O 7.C S y~'O *.' #. ".' _l ',/,
,/
fn
.sI. j /
' y! 7,,
1 l
v 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-
.