ML19329F377
| ML19329F377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1971 |
| From: | Engelhardt T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006270428 | |
| Download: ML19329F377 (8) | |
Text
3 c.:c m.
~ y'
.P200.& UUL FAC. @
- N. N O
DDCitiED S
UstEC
.g 2
JAN2 01971 * ~.
j_g.y, f[' ?!'L/
O'y.jfEN((
//
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA snm ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION GM EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g,,
d7.
B g
\\.
--r: =
p,s j;-
In the Matter of
)
s CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50,-329:
)
50-330f..f.l.fi. N (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO MOTION OF INTERVENORS SAGINAW VALIIY NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP, ET AL.
Introduction 1/
On January 7,1971, Saginsw Valley Study Group, et al.
(Saginaw Valley), intervenors in this proceeding, filed with the presiding atomic safety and licensing board (board) in this proceeding a " Memorandum of Certain Intervenors In Response to Applicant's Procedural Memoranda Regarding Pretrial Orders and Presentation of Evidence Filed on November 30, 1970 and December 4, 1970" (Memorandum).
Incorporated in this Memorandum are five Saginaw Valley motions relating to this proceeding. These motions respectively seek orders from the board to (1) require the AEC regulatory staff to submit to all parties a list of certain documents and to undertake certain other action relating h
2/
to documents; (2) require applicant to resubmit its list of witnesses;
~
1/ Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, Citizens Committee for the Environmental Protect'on of Michigan, Sierra Club, United Auto Workers of America, Trout Unlimited, West Michigan Environmental Law Society
- a 2_/ Memorandum, p. 6.
q T' His DOCUMENT CONTAI P00R QUAUTY PAGES i
\\
L
.8006270 N f n
1r 4
. (3) require the AEC regulatory staff to submit additional information dland relative to its list of witnesses; (4) require intervenor Mi if it proposes to offer witnesses or documents Nuclear Power Committee, 8, 1970, in this proceeding, to comply with the board's order of December 2/and (5) strike intervenor Dow Chemical Company's regarding such matters; Dow petition for leave to intervene or, in the alternative, require d
Chemical Company to submit to all parties a list of its witnesses an intends to offer in this proceeding.
information as to the evidence it b
to the motions briefly characterized in (2) and (3) a ove,
\\
k'ith respect the granting of the AEC regulatory staf f would have no objections to such orders if the board believes they are warranted.
Answer to Saginaw Valley's Motion to Require the AEC Regulatory Staff to Submit Certain Documents In its Memorandum Saginaw Valley has moved the board for an order 21, directing the AEC regulatory staff to submit on or before January its control, 1971, a list of documents in its possession or undet i h its review including internal memoranda and guidelines, dealing w t (PSAR) and the of the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report s
4/
In this regard Saginaw Valley preparation of its Safety Evalustion.
d the Safety requests the.t the list of documents be keyed into the PSAR an As part of this motion, Sagiuaw Valley has also moved that Evaluation.
3/ Memorandum, p. 6.
4/ Memorandum, p. 4.
O
. 21, 1971, the AEC regulatory staf f designate on or before January which of the documents on the list a:e subject to a claim of privilege w in and to file, with respect to such documents, a memorandum of lo I
5/
support of its claim.
At the outset it should be noted that the AEC regulatory staff has already made available to Saginaw Valley and to the other parties to this proceeding, as well as to the board, a list of documents upon Ohich it relied in preparing its Safety Evaluation and copies of the6/
AEC Division of Compliance inspection reports for the Midland Plant.
In addition the applicant has provided to the board and all parties a r-list of documents which are on file in the Comission's Public Docum 7/
The documents in this latter Room relating to this application.
category are, of course, available to Saginaw Valley for inspection in the Comission's Public Docu:nent P.oom and will, to the extent relevant
- ding, to the issues in this proceeding, and during the course of this procee be offered for identification as exhibits.
,5) Meum andum, pp. 3-4.
t 6_/ Letter from Counsel for the AEC regulatory staf f to the board date December 10, 1970.
7/ Exhibit A to ""otion by Applicant Consumers Power Company for Orders Establishing i.he Prehearing Procedures..." filed on November 30, 1970.
g-.
~
~'
J
\\
(
4 The documents which have not yet been identified by the AEC regulatory staff, and to which we assume Saginaw Valley's motion is directed are AEC records and documents and AEC internal working papers as those The availability documents are described in 10 CFR $ $2.4(o) and (q).
of these documente, as well as a list of these documents, to Saginaw % alley 8/
is subject to the provisions of 10 CFR $2.744.
Under 10 CFR $2.744(b) a procedure is established for a party to a proceeding to obtain copies of AEC records and documents which may not otherwise be available. Any request for such records and documents must set forth the need of the party for such documents and the relevancy
~
These requirements of 10 CFR thereof to the issues in the proceeding.
$2.744(b) apply equally to any list of such records and documents which may be requested.
fails motion is defective in this respect since it The Saginaw Valley forth either its need for the documents or their relevance to to set the issues in this proceeding. We are, however, it: the interest of facilitating procedural matters in this proceeding, prepared to waive j
Accordingly, we are undertaking to prepare this defect in the motion.
an appropriate list of the AEC records and documents, other than those 8/ It should be noted that 10 CFR $$2.4(o), (q) and 2.744 are contained in the amendment to 10 CFR Part 2 published in the Federal Register on 23,1970, (35 F.R.19500) to be ef fective upon publication.
December
==
~
contained in the lists described above, as requested by Saginaw
"'=
Valley.
=g.
The list of documents which we will prepare for submittal to the parties and the board will not, however, include internal working is defined in 10 CFR 52.4(o) or AEC records spapers, as that term and documents of the type specified in 10 CFR 59.5, all of which are privileged and subject to disclosure only in accordance with As provided in 10 CFR 52.744(d), the AEC 10 CFR $2.744(d) and (e).
regulatory staff will prepare a separate list of those documents which we believe to be privileged and will submit such a list to the board for its in camera inspection.
The AEC regulatory staff is presently assembling the lists of documents With respect to the list which we have agreed to described above.
furnish to the parties, we will prepare such a list as soon as possible.
The second list of documents which we consider to be privileged will also be prepared as soon as possible for submission to the board.
Since the AEC regulatory staff has agreed to furnish to Saginaw Valley I'
the list of documents described above and to furnish to the board a frem disclosure, we believe list of documents which we consider exempt ding that the Saginaw Valley motion should at this juncture in the procee be denied subject to appropriate renewal, if necessary, after the above
=:
lista have been submitted and appropriate determinations made.
~
..:^..
t l
. Answer to Saginaw Valley Motion to Require the AEC Regulatory Staf f to Submit Additional Information Relative to Its List of Witnesses In its Memorandum Saginew Valley has moved the board for an order to require the AEC regulatory staff to set forth in greater detail the 9/
scope of testimony of erch of its proposed witnesses.
In this proceeding the Safety Evaluation of the AEC regulatory staff i
his proceeding, uhich has previously been distributed to all parties to t i
i l
to the board, and to members of the public will constitute our test mony-t 15, 1970, i
As noted in our letter to the board dated December in-chief.
which was responsive to the board's order of December 8,1970, we are l
prepared to present three witnesses as sponsors of this testimony.
These three individuals, whose professional qualifications were submitted
{
f letter, were primarily responsible for the with our December 15, 1970, is these three proposed preparation of the Safety Evaluation and it to respond to cross-examination questions witnesses that we would expect As necessary,we are prepared to bring to the t
j on the Safety Evaluation.
H j
j hearing the AEC regulatory staff members whose names are appended to our letter of December 15, 1970, and who participated in various aspects i
of the review of the PSAR to respond to in-depth questionc relating to technical matters.
(
With respect to the consultants' reports attached to the Safety Evaluation,.l et
.l we will, as necessary, have representatives of these organizations pres n In our letter to sponsor their reports and to respond to quections.
9/ Memorandum, p. 6.
. t we identified.these organizations and of December 15, 1970, 21 representatives.
We do not interpret the board's order of December 8,1970, as requiring us to speculate as to the. scope of testimony which might In addition, at this be necessary as the result of cross, examination.
juncture in the proceeding Saginaw Valley has not made known its case, and we have no indication as to what areas of our Safety Evalua-I Pending further information in this tion may be of interest to them.
15, 1970, regard from Saginaw Valley, we believe our response of December met the intent of the board's order of December 8,1970.
For the reasons stated above, we believe that the motion should be denied.
Answer to Saginaw Valley's Motion to Strike Dow Chemical Company's Petition for Leave to Intervene In its Memorandum Saginaw Valley has moved the board to strike intervenor Dow Chemical Company's petition for leave to intervene or, in the alternative, to require Dow Chemical Company to submit a list of the
}
intends witnesses it' proposes to use and to indicate the evidence it H/
to of fer.
M/ At this time we do not have the name of the representative for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
M/ Memorandum, p. 8.
l
.. ~.....
.~
[,?..'..' ' ' '
. Saginaw Valley's arguments for excluding the Dow Chemical Company length by this board from this proceeding have been previously heard at and the board has twice rejected them (Tr. 34, (Tr. 30-34,148-155)
This present motion presents no new arguments or grounds for 155).
Accordingly, the board to reconsider its prior rulings on this matter.
iking the the board should deny so much of this motion as related to str Dow Chemical Company's petition for leave to intervene.
3 t
f We are, however, not opposed to the board's granting that portion o Saginaw Valley's motion which would require Dow Chemical Company to ding and submit a list of witnesses it proposes to use in this procee intends to offer. This requirement has
.to indicate the evidence it It should been levied upon the applicant and the AEC regulatory staf f.
have equal applicability to all other parties that intend to participate has not actively in this proceeding, including Saginaw Valley, which yet identified its witnesses or provided the parties with any informa-tion regarding its evidence.
\\
)
Respectfully submitted, I
fm
- WP' Thones 7. Engelhardt Trial Counsel pethesda, Maryland,
. Dated at,/Nay of January,1971.
thisj/
h
~
)
-