|
---|
Category:AFFIDAVITS
MONTHYEARML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20080K2221984-02-0303 February 1984 Affidavit of E Kiehner Re Appointment as Assistant Ofc Engineer,Responsible for Conducting third-party Const Implementation Overview ML20080K2001984-01-31031 January 1984 Affidavit of G Fotiades Re New Appointment as Procurement QA Engineer,Responsible for Conducting third-party Const Implementation Overview ML20082J7331983-11-29029 November 1983 Forwards Affidavit of Svc for Amend 114 (Rev 49 to FSAR) to Application for CPs & OLs ML20081F9001983-10-28028 October 1983 Affidavit of Jp Bradley Providing Info on Type,Location & Depth of Trees for Effective Fog Depletion or Barrier ML20081F8841983-10-26026 October 1983 Affidavit of DA Sommers Providing Addl Info on Physical Restrictions & Limited Effectiveness of Evergreen Fog Sweep or Barrier Between Cooling Pond Dike & Gordonville Road ML20081F1371983-10-21021 October 1983 Affidavit of Rl Lykens ML20081F9241983-10-20020 October 1983 Affidavit of CR Nefe Re Postulated Gordonville Road Tree Plantings ML20080S7211983-09-21021 September 1983 Affidavit of Bp Garde Re Discrepancies in Const Completion Dates.Exhibits Encl ML20076K6951983-09-0808 September 1983 Affidavit of JW Cook Attesting That on 821124,meeting Held W/G Charnoff & Bechtel to Seek Charnoff Legal Advice.Svc List Encl ML20077H6401983-08-0202 August 1983 Affidavit of P Shunmugavel Re Use of Ethafoam at Jobsite. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076N2641983-07-15015 July 1983 Affidavit of P Shunmugavel Re Significance of Observed Cracks in Containment ML20076N2711983-07-15015 July 1983 Affidavit of Wg Corley Re Visual Insp of Cracks in Containments Near Anchorages in Rooms 110 & 116 ML20072H5791983-06-24024 June 1983 Affidavit of L Clark Re Representation of Whistleblowers.If Govt Accountability Project Required to Name Whistleblowers, Ultimate Damage Will Be to Public Interest in Full & Free Flow of Info on Important Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073P7791983-04-21021 April 1983 Affidavit of Br Gilomen.Ten Drafts of Attachment 1 to Util Response to Notice of Violation EA-83-3 Contain No Matl Facts Which Would Clarify Attachment 1 ML20073P7771983-04-20020 April 1983 Affidavit of Sk Visser.All Drafts of Part a of Util Response to Notice of Violation EA-83-3 Have Been Given to Util Counsel ML20023D0341982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of SL Marello Re QC Breakdown & Criminal Falsification at Zack Co,Hvac Contractor at Facilities ML20023D0351982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of at Howard Re QC Breakdown & Criminal Falsification at Zack Co,Hvac Contractor at Facilities ML19350B9451981-03-20020 March 1981 Affidavit Re Distribution of Amend 88 to CP & OL Applications ML19350C7981981-03-16016 March 1981 Affidavit That Const Should Continue Despite Financial Risk. Present Uncertainty Re Seismic Issue Will Be Accounted for by Designing Soils Remedial Work W/Margin for Seismic Loads ML19350C8071981-03-0606 March 1981 Affidavit Re Seismic Review w/site-specific Response Spectra.Review Could Take Up to Two Yrs.Util Is Incorporating Margin Into Designs of Cassions & Other Proposed Soils Remedial Work.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A7331978-12-0404 December 1978 Affidavit of Gh Whipple,Consultant,Re Rn-22 Release Effects.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19344A1651978-06-0101 June 1978 Affidavit Supporting Fj Kelley,Atty General,Petition to Intervene.If Mi Is to Have Any Voice in Plant Operating Conditions,Leave Must Be Granted ML19330A0761977-05-26026 May 1977 Affidavit on Behalf of Intervenors Responding in Part to Util Rebuttal Testimony.Urges Suspension of Const Pending Outcome of Full Remanded Hearings.Supporting Documentation Encl ML19331B3101977-05-13013 May 1977 Affidavit in Support of Further Response Opposing Censure & Cost Motions & Statement in Support of Intervenors' Motions to Strike Certain NRC & Applicant Filings ML19344A1981974-05-11011 May 1974 Affidavit Supporting Saginaw Intervenors' 740511 Petition for Expert Witnesses & Attys' Fees.Issues Will Not Be Adequately Aired W/O Saginaw Participation.Cites AEC Refusal to Retain Independent Qa/Qc Expert ML19344A1991974-05-0808 May 1974 Affidavit Supporting Saginaw Intervenors' Petition for Expert Witnesses' & Attys' Fees.Large Funds Expended to Help Ensure Operation & Const W/O Qa/Qc Violations.Organizations Comprising Group Mainly Nonprofit.Certification Encl ML19331B0491974-02-0404 February 1974 Affidavit of RB Atwater,Cpc,Re Supply & Demand of Oil. Press Release & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331B0441974-02-0404 February 1974 Affidavit of WE Keppler,Cpc,Re Facility Capital & Projected Costs ML19326D4881973-10-17017 October 1973 Affidavit Re Util Transmission Facilities.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329F1801973-07-0909 July 1973 Affidavit Re Results of Insp of Documents Since 730706 ML19331B2481973-06-15015 June 1973 Affidavit Stating That Saginaw Intervenors' Photograph Re Wall Crack Appear to Be Same as Actual Crack Located in Inside Wall of Tendon Access Gallery.Intervenors' Photograph & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329F2491973-05-0404 May 1973 Affidavit Re Compliance W/Joint Document Request ML19331A9791973-01-16016 January 1973 Affidavit Opposing Saginaw Intervenors' 730107 Motion to Recall.Columbia Law Review Oct 1972 Issue Does Not Constitute Newly Discovered Evidence ML19331A8461973-01-0707 January 1973 Affidavit Supporting Saginaw Intervenors' Motion to Recall & Revoke ASLB Initial Decision on Grounds of Bias.Columbia Law Review Oct 1972 Article by Aw Murphy, NEPA & Licensing Process, Cited in Bias Charge Encl ML19331A8441973-01-0202 January 1973 Affidavit Re Const Status,Costs & Prerequisites for Full Resumption of Const.Stresses Adverse Effects of Delay. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329F0491972-12-22022 December 1972 Affidavit of Jl Bacon Re Time & Resources Necessary for File Search Per 720726,0816,0921 & 25 Document Requests. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19329E8961972-08-30030 August 1972 Affidavit & Argument Re Accusation of Contempt of ASLB Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A3111972-08-30030 August 1972 Affidavit of Mm Cherry Re Contempt Order.Discusses Facts Erroneously Characterized W/O Admitting That Circumstances Exist Implying Contempt & That ASLB Is Granted Power of Contempt.Dow Chemical Effluents List Encl ML19331B2811972-07-10010 July 1972 Affidavit Re Amount of Electrical Generation Lost If Process Steam Supplied to Dow Chemical Co Does Not Pass Through High Pressure Turbine.Supporting Calculations Encl ML19331B2851972-07-0808 July 1972 Affidavit Re L Holcomb 720614 Testimony Re Plant Impact on Area Wildlife Populations ML19331B2841972-07-0707 July 1972 Affidavit Re L Holcomb 720614 Testimony Re Plant Impact on Fish Losses in Tittabawassee River ML19331A8771972-05-24024 May 1972 Affidavit in Further Opposition to Dow Chemical Co Consolidate.No Regard for Saginaw Intervenors' Convenience & Necessity Given & No Certification of ASLB Decision Made ML19331A8831972-05-19019 May 1972 Affidavit Supporting Dow Chemical Co Motion for Order Consolidating Mapleton & Saginaw Interventions.Intervenors Share Interest & Questions.Certificate of Svc & Saginaw News 720428 Article Re Failed Delaying Tactics Encl ML19329E7221972-03-0606 March 1972 Affidavit of Mm Cherry Supporting Saginaw Intervenors' Brief in Opposition to Westinghouse Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Westinghouse Motion to Quash Subpoena ML19331A8991971-09-13013 September 1971 Affidavit Stating That Environ & Safety Impact of Nuclear Waste Generation Must Be Fully Explored & Guaranteed Before More Licensing Occurs ML19329E9101971-06-14014 June 1971 Affidavit of Jn Keen Re Competitive Situation in State of Mi.Correspondence Encl 1986-07-08
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 1991-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
l 1
f3 U
D cet Nos. 50-329 and 50-33c original signed and notarized and sent tg Secretary, USAEC ;
AFFIDAVIT OF MYRON M. CHERRY STATE OF MARYLAND SS.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY Myron M. Cherry, being duly sworn on oath, states:
- 1. My name is Myron M. Cherry. I mn counsel for the following intervenors: Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group; Sierra Club; United Auto Workers of America International; Trout Unlimited, M!cnigan Chapter; West Michigan Environmental Action Council; Michigan Citizens for a Better Environment; and University of Michigan Environmental Law Society.
P. For convenience in this hearing, these seven inter-venors have consolidated their position and have been referred to as the Saginaw Valley Intervenors. The Saginaw. group represents a broad series of interests in contrast to the personal and property interests of the several persons who intervened as residents of Mapleton, Michigan. The only factually permissible consolidation of interests hhs already taken place.
3 From the inception of this case, it has been the Saginaw Valley Intervenors who have taken the laboring oar and have done a substantial portion of the work of preparation for this intervention. For a long period of time the Mapleton Intcr-venors were not in attendance regularly at the hearing. Even after Mc. Like entered his appearance, there were periods when the Mapleton Intervenors did not have counsel present at the hearing. To suggest 1
f that there is an identity of representation between the Saginaw
, 90enso 76f f 6
Valley Intervenors and the Mapleton Interrenorn ic not factually acc u r, :.. .
4 Any consolidation of the Saginaw Valley Intervenorc with the Mapleton Intervenors would prejudice the rights of Saginav.
The Saginaw Valley Intervenors filed environ = ental contentions num-bering 70 pages and covering 190 contentions. The safety matters raised by Gaginaw were different in secpe and content than those of Mapleton.
9 Nothing in this affidavit is meant to sugge:,t that the Mapleton Intervenors have not pursued their interests. It is cnly meant to demonstrate that factually there is no basis for sug-gecting that Mapleton and Saginaw are of the sa=e mind or that their oositions or manner of presenting such positions are identical.
Tnic miE ht be true if the Saginaw Valley Intervenors were permitted to be present but the Mapleton Intervenors were not present, since the uncinan Valley Intervenors appear to have raiced'all of the con-tentions raised by Mapleton.
- 6. It is true that Dr. Lawrence Holcomb was a consultant to the Saginaw Valley Intervenors in connection with the preparation of the environmental contentions of the Saginaw Valley Intervenors.
He is no longer and has not been for some weeks a consultant to Seginaw. In fact, the Saginaw environ = ental contentions had input from many courecs other than Dr. Holcomb.
- 7. Mr. Like asked me the name and address of Dr. Holcomb td determinc for himself whether the Mapleton Intervenors wculd like to uce Dr. Holcomb with respect to the contentions and matters
-2
I brought Dr. Holcomb and Mr. Like Luiy wrce F.oing, to ralne. to cne Like'c request and there is no truth at all
.9 t a< r :tt Mr. tio working for the Saginaw l
.croution t, hat Dr. Holcomb is sub si en Telley Intervenors. l 8.
There is no truth to the suggestion that the remova attempt to delay of myself from the hearing was any stratagem or The reason I am not there is as stated in my thece proceedings. ll remains true; that is, enclier letter and affidavit and it sti t the same time.
1 cannot be there and be at the ECCS hearings a Mr. Like informed me that he represents only the 9 dockets.
Mapleton Intervenors and their interests in these ther 10.
My clients made a valid attempt to secure ano They found no one who could attorney to represent their interests. idering the facts that (1) or would represent their interests, cons (2) there was much work there were over 'j,000 pagen of transcript;h could not be rea and preparation done by myself whic i and (3) there are by another attorney in a short period of t me; familiar and not very many attorneys readily available who are knowledgeable in the relevant areas.
11.
Intervenors in these dockets are participants in The ASLB cannot validly require a party to AEC Decket RM-50-1. dockets or in RM-50-1 when choone between participating in these ingc at the (1) the AEC (and its delegates) has scheduled both hear intervenors-participants I same time with full knowledge that the t d by the same attorney; were active in both hearings and represen e ircumstances (2) the intervenors made reasonable attempts neither wereunder forth- thef l counsel bus to seek continuances and other lega I
4 i
. m. '. nr. : cind (i) Lhc AOLD has ruled tnat the intervenora nre, in errect. F.ettin6 their ECCS hearing in these dockets by participating i n .:M 1, thereby requiring their participation there.
- 12. The motion of Dow Chemical is nothing more than an attempt (a poor one) to try to find some legal basis to support the Board's earlier decision to deny Saginaw Valley Intervenors the right to counsel by virtue of the fact that it scheduled a hearing here wnen I was unavailable end scheduled in another Commission proceeding, one indeed which will take precedence over and affect directly these dockets. The motion by Dcw Chemical is a sham attempt to suggest that the efforts ofsche seven groups which I represent will somehow be represented in my a cence or in the absence of an attorney specifically speaking for them.
13 As some day all will realize, the purpose of tu.
Midland intervention (as any contested hearing) is to attempt to get a true and correct picture of the facts prior to the granting or cenial of a construction permit. It is well known that the pur-pose of some of the participants (and perhaps others) is to get the hearing over as quickly as possible and get on with giving Midland its dual purpose nuclear power plant. Since the real issue is whe-ther the facts will be analyzed, the decision to schedule hearings, so as to prevent the Saginaw Valley Intervenors and their attorney who has worked almost two years on the case from participating in these hearings, is nothing short of a decision in aid of those who wish 1
the hearin:r, over at any cost, even the waiving of the right to counsei. We would have thought that given the ardor, energy and celflessness of the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, the ASL3 would have acne to great pains to permit them to participate, if for no other -
reason but to record their hard work and effort toward seeing that a public hearing is really public. If this Board grants Dew Chemical's motion, it will not change the fact that there is no support for the motion; ritther, it will further deprive the Saginaw Valley Intervenors from their independent right to participate on behalf of the thousands of persons they represent.
14 The history of these proceedings records the following:
(a) Without the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, the hearing in these dockets would have been uncontested on many major issues; (b) Without the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, a construction
,ermit may have issued before the Calvert Cliffs decision and thus without any environmental review; (c) Uithout the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, a construction ucemit would v>ry likely have issued without any contest on ECCS issues; (d) Without the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, an emergency plan would have been adopted which was grossly insupportable; and (a) Without the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, there would have been no conrching independent check on the prehearing agreement:
made among the Regulatory Staff, the Applicant and Dow Chemical, particulacly about safety matters.
Without the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, it is improbable that a full and co=plete hearing will be had. Attempts to consoli-date their interest with the interest of an intervenor who has
- idopted a different role in these proceedings fails to recognize L: e prior role of the Saginaw Valley Intervenors and their desire to have participated in these proceedings, a desire which was pre-vented by the very simple fact that this Board failed to recognize:
(1) that there are few attorneys in the United States who opt for and can adequately represent public interest groups; (2) that one of those attorneys who had represented the Sagindw Valley Intervenors for almost two years and was thoroughly familiar with the case, its preparation and manner of presenting the Saginaw interests, was scheduled and participating in the National ECCS Hearings at a time when this Board decided to schedule the hearings in these dockets; and (3) that the decision to hold a hearing was made without any showing of prejudice by Applicant, Dow Chemical or the Regulatory Staff, in the event that the hearing was delayed until subsequent to the ECCS hearings.
15 Granting the motion of Dow Chemical will severely prejudice Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, Sierra Club, United Auto Workers of America International, Trout Unlimited, Michigan Chapter, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Michigan Citizens for a Better Environment, and University of Michigan
- ve e .cen t,: L *
. ", :;oc io t,y, in that they would oc denied an indepen-
-!cnt right to pursue their broader interests in their own manner and with counsel of their choice.
lo. Denial of Dow's motion will not adversely affect any other participant's rights in these proceedings. Whether any other participant's rights have been adversely affected is solely
> ha.ct,lon ol' the validity vel non of the Doard'n earlier decision to nchedule a hearing when seven of the intervenors could not participate with their counsel, a decision we have earlier charac-terized an a denial of due process, and based on a lack of recogni-tion of the real issues which face the Atomic Energy Commission, the nuclear community and this Board. The time has come (it is long past) when the public, not the private interests, is to be i,4 von a fal.r shake in AEC proceedingc, particularly when it hac not been the private interests which have unearthed the problems of nuclear safety and environmental protection.
- 17. The granting of Dow's motion, and in fact its denial without a strong statement as to the role, contribution and effort made by the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, a role they wish to continue, would do an injustice to the public's right to par ticipate.
18 Intervenors submitted a verified statement of their pre,iudice in cupport of their earlier motion for a continuance.
- !o party opposing the motion for a continuance submitted any facts to nupport prejudice on their part if the motion were granted and did not dispute by competent testimony or affidavit the facts sub-mitted by Intervenors, even though such opposing parties had an onportunity to do so at the prehearing conference on April 28, 1972.
- Ince the Bon ed, therefore, in its denial of our motion, did not have any facts other than those submitted by the Saginaw Grcup, the decision to hold a hearing was in violation of 5 U.S.c. section 5$4(b) which provides, inter alia, that:
~
"In fixing the tine and place of hearing, due rec:ird shall be had for .the convenience and necon::ity of the parties or their representative."
In fact no regard was given to the convenience and necessity cf the Saginaw Valley Intervenors, cc=prising seven of the eleven parties to these dockets. Moreover, *he Board even failed to decide prior to tne hearing the Saginaw Valley Intervenors' written motion filed on Xay 8,1972 and requested to be filed by the Board at tennne ri p t p. 5?'32. Finally, no certification of the Board'c decision was made, despite the novelty of the issue and the obvious cc.d crucial i=portance of the decision vis-a-vis the rights of the Saginaw Valley Intervencrs.
dAON .j h
' Ny on M. Cnerry' Gubccribed and sworn to before se thic 24th day of May, 1972.
l44' ?
f . 4l~
.~.otary Puolic