ML19329F513
| ML19329F513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1971 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006300719 | |
| Download: ML19329F513 (7) | |
Text
A o.4 -
.p se
.s<
i r c,-
s3 o
-t;,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC Ef;ERGY C0tGilSSI0tt BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AtlD LICEf! sit:G BOARD' In the Matter of
)
jp,j/,
)
Cun'E.'ERS POUER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50 -329
~ j,
)
50-330 (iiidland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSUER OF AEC RECULATORY STAFF TO SAGIf!A'.! VALLEY It:TERVENORS' FIVE t'.0TIONS OF DECEMBER 7,1971 On Decer.her 7,1971, intervenors Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group et al. (intervenors) filed a docur.iant entitled " Motions of Saginaw Valley et al. Intervenors" stating the five separate motions to which we respond below.
Motion No. 1 This is a motion for an order the thrust of which would be to pro-hibit the applicant or any of its vendors from engaging in any discussi a with the AEC regulatory staff, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards (ACRS), any AEC national laboratory, or any other Federal agency
-about any actual or potential issue in this proceeding, unless prior s
notice and an opportunity to participate is given to all parties to this proceeding or, where that is impracticable, unless a " comprehensive and datailed suriaary" of the ccm:r.unication is distributed to all parties uithin three business days after the communication.
R THis DOCUMENT CONTAiMS POOR QUAUTY PAGES R0063007)f Iwh
t
_2_
Oral communication between the AEC regulatory staff and the nuclear industry is an established and,' we believe, vital feature of the process oy ilich the :taff discharges its responsibilities.
These communica-ticns, we would emphasize, are not ex carte contacts subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 9.2.780.
Nor does any rule of the Commission authorize a presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to impose limitations or conditions on the conduct of such conmunication.
He believe that the utility of these communications from the staff's standpoint would be substantially diminished if the applicant were unable to meet with the staff without the particination of tha appli-cant's adversaries in pratracted and controversial litigation.
- Motion No.1 describes the ACRS and other Federal agencies as i
l
" agents or representatives" of the staff. This, of course, is not l
accurate. However, the considerations discussed above apply also l
to'such ccmmunication as the applicant may have with these other entities.
For the above reasons, Motion No.1 should be denied.
U
?
t i >
Motion No. 2 This is a action for an order directing the staff to produce " copies of all correspondence or other documents sent by it to or received by it from any other person, fina or corporatior. including, but not limited to National Laboratories, which discuss or relate to preparation of Regulatory St f positions on the Midland Units' Emergency Core Cooling System and for the Draft Detailed Statement".
Under 10 CFR s 2.744(d), an application for production of such documents must include a showing of need and relevancy to the issues in the proceeding. The intervenors have not made the requisite showings.
We_ note in this connection that neither the ECCS nor the environmental issues in this proceeding have been defined.
For-the above reasons, Motion No. 2 should be denied.
We note in passing that the list of documents that we shall produce
~
in response to Motion No. 5 will identify, inter alia, the documents described in Motion No. 2.
i
m
- 4.-
Motion No. 3 This is a motion for an order authorizing two regresentatives of the intervenor: "with the "coperation of the Regulatory Staff, informally to concunicate with and to question agents, representatives or emoloyees of the Regulatory Staff who are participating in the Midland Units' Emergency Core Cooling System review and the preparation of the Draft Datailed Statement.
As we indicated at the November 23, 1971, conference (Tr. 4862, 4864), intervenors in another pending proceeding recently mat with representatives of the staff, and we are prepared to have a similar meeting with intervenors in this proceeding.
In the other proceeding the intervenors met at our Bethesda, Maryland, offices with members of the staff. We are prepared to schedule a similar meeting with the intervenors at a time mutually satisfactory.
At any such meeting we would be prepared to discuss,'among other things, arrangements for such further meetings as may be mutually satisfactory, involving either AEC employees or emoloyees of AEC national laboratories.
We believe that the foregoing proposal is responsive to the legitimate aims of Motion No 3 and would enable the intervenors to make such contributions as they desire to make to the staff's ECCS and environ-mental reviews.
We are, however, opposed to Motion No. 3 as we understand it.
An order by the Board authorizing the intervenors to " question" individuals
^
5 of their own choosing, including any and all potential witnesses in this proceeding, is essentially an order permitting informal depositions of a type proscribed by 10 CFR 5 2.720(h). That section of the " Rules of Practice" makes clear that the Board lacks authority to order depositions of rac.ed AEC personnel. Additionally, even assuming that no circumvention
-of 10 CFR 5 2.270(h) is intended, the intervenors have not made the
. good cause showing required of an application for an order authorizing such depositions of AEC personnel as the " Rules of Practice" permit.
Accordingly, Motion No. 3 should be denied.
l Motion No. 4 l
This, in effect, is a motion for an order directing the staff to produce a comprehensive and detailed summary of each communication L
since July 23, 1971, between the applicant or any of its vendors and
+he staff or any of its " agents or representatives," as broadly defined in Motion No.1 relating to an issue directly or indirectly involved 3
or to be involved in this proceeding.
Essentially, this motion is an interrogatory. As.such, we oppose i; on the ground that the intervenors have not shcun good cause for requiring an answer, including, but not limited to, a showing that the l
l information sought is needed and relates to defined, contested issues f
in this proceeding.
i t:
i
n
'~
.. We are, huwever, prepared to make available to the intervenors, subject to the deletion of privileged matter, if any, such minutes of meetings and records of telephone conversations between AEC emoloyees or AEC naticnal laboratory employees and the applicant or any of its vendors, relating specifically to the Midland docket, as may be in our possession or under our control for the period since July 23, 1971.
For the above reasons, Motion No. 4 should be denied.
Nation No. 5 This is a motion for an order directing the staff to produce "a list identifying each document, whether clainad privileged or not, it or its representatives relied upon, whether adopted or rejected, in the preparation of its Draft Environmental Report and its analysis of the Midland Units' ECCS issues." The order sought by this motion would further provide that such list be submitted within ten days and be updated "whenever a substantial amount of additional documents have come to [the staff's] attention or once every two weeks, whichever is ea rl ier. "
We have no objection to providing the intervencrs with a list such as that described in Motion No. 5.
We are prepared to submit the list within a reasonable period of tima following publication of the draft
)
l
-*we
~ _ _..,
f c-environmental statement, and thereafter to make a good faith effort to keep the list current until the Board has closed the record with respect ta envircamental matters.
ile do, however, object to that portion of the motion which would rea,uire the staff to folicw the time schedule proposed by the intervenors for us to provide the list. The time schedule proposed by the inter-venors is both impracticable and unwa; ranted under the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, Motion No. 5 should be denied on the understanding that the staff will produce the requested list in accordance with the repre-sentations made herein.
Respectfully submitted, A
d David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 17th day of December,1971.
-..p
.,,...., _,