ML20002D821
| ML20002D821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1973 |
| From: | Barth C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Steketee P STEKETEE, P.W. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101230097 | |
| Download: ML20002D821 (2) | |
Text
-
y;3 3 01973 Peter W. Steketee, Esq.
Vander Veen, Freihofer & Cook, P.C.
950 Union Bank Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502
Dear Mr. Steketee:
IN RE CONSUMF.RS FOWER DOCKET NO. 50-155 Your recent filing containing an amendment to your petition and an addi-tional effidavit by Mr. John McGarry has come to my attention. Contrary to the statement in the first numbered paragraph of Mr. McGarry's affidavit, AEC attorneys made no request for an additional affidavit nor suggestion that one be filed. I telephoned you on Monday, May 14, 1973, and called your attention to the provisions of 1,0 CFR $ 2.714(a) and made particular reference to the verification and interest requirements contained therein.
I also read to you portions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision in Prairie Island (ALAB 107) which relates to the interest and affidavit requirements of the Commission's regulations as interpreted by the Appeal Board and in r.a attempt to be helpful to you further indicated my belief that the affidavit attached to your petition was not sufficient.
Similarly, in order to assure that you clearly understand the basis of my discussion with you, I would like you to recognise that we would prefer to respond to your petition on its merits, rather than on the basis of pleading defects. Nonetheless, we feel that it is necessary that your petition comply both in form and substance with the requirements of the agency's regulations.
Even after receiving Mr. McGarry's second affidavit, there is still a substantial question as to whether Mr. McGarry's two affidavits do in fact fulfill the substantive requirements of the Commission's regulations.
Ordinarily, I would not see the necessity of informing the Board and other persons concerned with the proceeding of our discussion. However, since h&$00$
Mr. McGarry's affidavit of May 21 states in its first paragraph that it was made at the request of AEC attorneys. I am sending a copy of this letter to those who receive that affidavit so that this matter may be clarified.
Sincerely, Charles A. Barth, Attorney Office of General Counsel ec:
Max D. Paglin Dr. Harry Foreman Frederick J. Shon George Freeman, Esq.
Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Karl Waldner DISTRIBUTION:
OGC Files Gmtwn Reg. Central HShapar TEngelhardt JScinto MKarman CBarth JShea Formal Files Chron 0 GC........
..... 0GC...
omc>
summt >
0
..... TF RDT
[
om > 5/29/....
. 5/...]I3 Form AEC.Sts (Rn.9-53) AECM 0240
- c. A costas.unzT ritortu c orrrr - isto o. e.s.s