ML19308D612
| ML19308D612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1972 |
| From: | Davis F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050778 | |
| Download: ML19308D612 (4) | |
Text
6-o-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ItiiOl(f THf ATOMIC SAffTY AND lICfNSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
THE TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC-ILLUMINATING )
DOCKET NO. 50-346 COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
)
REPLY OF THE AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO RE-0 PEN SUSPENSION HEARINGS On May 9,1972, Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power, (Intervenor) filed a
" Motion to Re-Open Suspension Hearings" on the ground that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board had erroneously declined to hear evidence from any of the parties to the proceeding "with respect to identification of the radiological environmental harm that may result from the planned operation of the Davis-Besse plant." 'Intervenor simultaneously made a filing declining to submit proposed findings for the reasons set out in the aforesaid Motion.
4 For the reasons set forth herein, the staff urges the Board to deny Intervenor's motion to re-open suspens' ion hearings and to proceed with utmost expedition to. issue an initial decision in this matter.
As part of the Memorandum and Order and Notice of Hearing issued by the Commission for the subject hearing, the Board was directed to " render 800305077W h1
. ~
a de novo decision based upon the criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix is. *..11:ni 1.?," li)ip lher wi t h I.he i nn.iderntlun spet.l fled in t.ht-April 7,1972, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Col rnbia in Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power et al. v.
On remand, the. Commission should consider in d:: tail whether this additional irretrievable commitment of substantial resources might affect the eventual decision reached on the N.E.P. A.
review. The degree to which this expenditure might affect the outcome of the final N.E.P.A.
process should be a paramount consideration in the decision on suspension reached after the hearings on remand."
During the course of the hearing the Board excluded from the record proposed testimony of both the applicant and the staff dealing with matters relating to environmental impact of the continued construction of the facility during the NEPA review period, and the environmental impact of operation of the facility (Tr. 71-89, 117-129, 446-449).
Such testimony was designed to complete the record with respect to the matter cited in the court's decision above - that is, to enable a fully _ informed conclusion to be reached on the prospect of financial foreclosure of abandonment or of the' adoption of alternatives because of the substantiality of the total irretrievable resources incurred during the NEPA review period.
The basis stated by the Board for excluding the proposed testimony was that such testimony, if admitted, would broaden the scope of the issues to encompass matters that would
be decided during the tiEPA review period - matters under the t...m i.. l e.n ' t. [ne,t the ljemrd,J.iuthori ty.
(i r. 29-33, 36-37, 39-40, 46-47,83-87,447-449,462.)
The staff objected to the ruling of the Board but was permitted to make an offer of proof of the staff testimony so rejected.
(Tr.449)
The staff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed with the Board on May 10, 1972, further reflect the staff's rationale for believing that the Board's ruling.tas incorrect.
"hile the staff is thus of the view that the prese'nt evidentiary record is not complete, it believes that the appropriate and most expad!tious course of action to bring this matter to the Appeal Board or the Commission for detennination is not by the method of re-opening the hearing, as proposed by intervenors, but rather by the Board's issuance of its Initial Decision on o~ before May 19 (i.e. within the time period prescribed by the Commission Memorandum and Order) on the basis of the record as it no'i stands.
Exceptions could thereafter be filed within five days, so that this matter might be considered by the Appeal Board or the Commission.
tfully submitted,
/-
.N.ad
, 'Q.
SC
'Frdncis X. Davis /
Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of May,1972
~
~
o
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA In the Matter of ~
)
THE TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
Docket No. 50-346 COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station))
_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Proposed Transcript Correction" and of the '! Re onal Staff ',o Intervenor's Motion to Re-O egulatory captioned matter, both dated May 17, pen Suspension Hearings" in the by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail 1972, were 17th day of May,1972:'
, this Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C.
20545 Board U. S. Atomic Energy Comission Dr. John R. Lyman Washington, D. C. 20545 Department of Environmental Sciences Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The University of North Carolina Panel Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Dr. Emeth A. Luebke 610 Foxen Drive Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
Santa Barbara, California 93105 Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary of the Jerome S. Kalur, Esq.
Commission
-Jamison, Ulrich, Burkhalter & Hesser U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 1425 National City Bank Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20545 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge & Madden h ngton C.
20506 O
(f ;m ym Francis X. Davis Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff