ML19344A142

Intervenors',Other than Dow Chemical Co,Motion for Filing Instanter Reply to Util 771018 Petition for Reconsideration. Requests Util Petition Be Denied.Intervenors Response & Proof of Svc Encl

ML19344A142
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/23/1977
From:	Cherry M, Flynn P CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19344A143	List: ML19344A142 ML19344A145
References
NUDOCS 8008060422
Download: ML19344A142 (4)

Text

-

' ' ~ -

102377(1)

,m m

, M1IQ .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d gcllj ,5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 y ,)1 Q GC$2,7 ;gC --

s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOA o.gj' 6

) /o/ 23/r7 a

m In the Matter of

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330

'- (Midland" Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) .

MOTION FOR FILING INSTANTER A REPLY TO STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company move the Board for permission to file this document instanter.

l This reply is necessary because of-inexcusable.and improper statements made in the Staff's Answer to Petition for l Reconsideration filed under date of October 18, 1977.

Reply i

l 'l. The Regulatory Staff raises the question I i

l. that the Petition for Reconsideration will not prejudice j I

us. This is flatly wrong because we have relied upon  ;

paragraphs 9, 10, and ll of the initial decision on j suspension both before the Appeal Board and the Commission regarding internal appeals as well as before the Court of Appeals in1the District of Columbia in otr Motion to Enforce 1

Mandate; l i

1 800soe,o 6

~

~

. . . . . ~ . .

m- .b

^

2. We seeino. reason for reconsidering lthose 4

- portions loftthe. decision' dealing:with the " ploys" and i

" stratagems" of' Consumers andLits attorneys.. The Board made the finding:b'ased upon exhibits (which 3 even ' the ,

~

Regulatory' Staff' believes are.important, Staff Answer at

p. 5-6). and the' Board's overall view of the hearing and- -

evidence. .There is no warrant -for changing the Board's 2

findings.and saa view the Staff's answer as another cog -

in-its overall-plan to acsist Consumers any way it can:

' 3. -At page 3, footnote,1-of the Staff's response, .

the Staff states that the Commission's Office of Inspector i~

andJAuditor:has given Consumers a-clean bill of health-on

~

{ the Temple Testimony, but more is involved in the' Board's i

. Findings'thanimerely the Temple Testimony.- Further, we 2

p -were not privy to the review of ~ the OIA and we have no confidence in that review. We are all privy to the ploys -

b andistratagems which took place at the. Hearing Board and' Consumers ~had every opportunity to call witnesses who [

j: .. .

j attended the meeting which was_the subject of:the Nute

- notes and it. refused to-do so; and [

l

4. While perhaps.the Board'may have to-give

~

. Consumers' attorneys.a hearing'before it issues sanctions againstithe(attorneys,otheiBoard need not vacate its findings.and we~ urge the Board not"to do'so.-

The~ fact'of-the matterEisithat' Consumers has exhibited itself in these; J

chearingsjin?a quite shabby manner and'nonetheless has c

w ' ' ~

~

.. --2-:

~ ~

M- 4 '-# < e- y3 9 e t w v-=,! , r>

A m . ,,

secured the con'tinuation of construction (although we

~

believe improperly so). For the Board to vacate its -

important findings in paragraphs 9,.10, and 11 would

,. truly be. the addition of insult to injury and the ultimate ,

-reward for dishonesty.

WHEREFORE, we request the Board deny' Consumers' L

~~

Petition.for Reconsideration.

l l Respec fully submitted l- N

'l A l^ l . lh . [ ll One 'ipf the Attorn9ys for In ervenors Othek han Dow Chemical Co pany.

i l ..

-l

.MYRON M. CHERRY l PETER A. FLYNN- i One IBM Plaza j Suite 4501 l

- Chicago,. Illinois 60611~ .

-(312)- 565-1177-- .

.l .

9 1

I i

PROOF OF SERVICE o I' certify that copies of the foregoing document were mailed, postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and counsel for Consumers Power Company, the Nuclear Regulatory Staff and Dow Chemical Company on October 23,'1977.

N One 'of

/db [

me Attorney %.-for ntervenors Other' 2an Dow Chemical ompany k

b

/ ,

+

' g 6, Y$ -

~

s -

6 @+-Q. t.*(' I . -

i