ML19329F478
| ML19329F478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1972 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006300677 | |
| Download: ML19329F478 (3) | |
Text
.
+;
\\'
q r
~
.sc.W. 9/,I3o a'. -
(EI,IB -
UNITI:D STATI S OF CH RICA ATOMIC EUERGY C0ti!!!SSION
'\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY NID LICENSING 110ARD
~
/-/d -7A In the Matter of
)
1
)
CONSllMERS POWER COMPANY
.)
Docket Nos. 50-329 /
cw
)
50-330
/
.' ' l.'..f Y
'l (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
COMMENTS OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF ON MAPLETO'l INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO CERTAIN PORTIO!!S OF BOARD ORDER DATED DECEMBER 22, 1971 On December 29, 1971, the Napleton Intervenors (intervenors) filed a " Response to Certain Portions of Board Order Dated December 22, 1971," setting forth their contentions and positions with respect to the applicant's environmental report.
In pertinent part, the order'of December 22 directed the intervenors to file on or before December 31, 1971, with respect to the applicant's environmental report:
(a) their contentions identifying the alleged inadequacies in such report, if any; (b) their positions as to those issues for which they believe sufficient data is presented; and
-(c) their requests for discovery which they believe is warranted by the issues they are raising.
Despite its length (more than 7 pages) and the number of its
" contentions" (25), the intervenors' December 29 submission does THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUALITY PAGES 800630o677 L,
u-
q L-
. =.--..:.-
- =
p r'
o not contribut.c Wigni ficantly to t.he def init ion or t he-envi r onw ot.il issues in this proceeding.
Most of the contentiorrt are couche<l in vague 'and overly general terms. / In our view, none of the conten-tions is stated in reasonably specific detail, and the pleadino as a whole is not adequately responsive to the Board's order of December 22.
We note 'in passing that in several instances the intervenors have merely rephrased a statenent in the Introduction to the appli-cant 's supplemental environmental report so as to assert the contrary of the statement.
Th:s comment aoplies to contentions, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16'and 20.
Additionally, a number of the contentions appear to raise issues which w>re c: could have been raised in the radiological health and -
safety phase of the proceeding, by offer of proof or otherwise. This comment applies: to contentions 7, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in their entirety, and to contentions 1, 2 and 3 in part.
Contentiom 14 (in part) and 18, we note, appear to cover matters, such as ultimate disposal of high level wastes resulting from spent fuel reprocessing, which are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
For the foregoing -reasons, the interveners' December 29 submission is inadequate and does little "to refine the contested environmental issues in this proceeding" in accordance with the Board's order of Decembe rL 22.
,*f ForJexanole, contention 5, an ultimate conclusion:
"5 The alleged benefits of the Midland nuclear plant will not adequately compensate for its-huge environnental costs."
s*J'-
e=
f
&. _ -w-M.
w
.s.sa.
ge.
-.m.
9
y
.x U
~G.
~
a Since, by order dated January 6,1972, the Board allowed' the Saginau Intervenors to defer filing their contentions, etc., with resr>ect tc the. applicant's environmental report until February 4,1972, we would have no. objection to granting a similar extension to the liapleton Intervenors for the purpose o~f. enabling.them to restate in reasonably specific detail the environmental contentions in their December 29 f.iling.
Respectfully submitted, N
_0%y !
&l d /
David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Requlatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
. this 10th day of January,1972.
9 a
-T'-+
M' "I
-