ML19329F595
| ML19329F595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1971 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007020744 | |
| Download: ML19329F595 (8) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f.l J
00CRET NUMBER
- w..,,6
)
6.
Pl On & Ufil, FAC. '
D C
CJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 8I g)GZ6197I ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION wer ;
e In the Matter of
)
1;
)
N Docket Nos. 5 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 0-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS ORDER POOR QUAUTY PAGES I.
Schedule of Further Proceedings.
A.
Issues Other Than ECCS and Environmental Issues.
1.
No further oral evidence will be received except by leave of the Board.
2.
On or before September 15, 1971:
(a)
Saginaw intervenors shall file their written evidence with respect to the validity of Part 20 (including evidence as to the synergistic effects of Dow effluents).
(b)
Saginaw intervenors shall file their written evidence with respect to quality assurance and quality control'in the limited areas specified at transcript pages 4168 and 4177.
(c)
Mapleton intervenors shall file their written evidence with respect to their contentions numbered 3 and 4.
(d)
Applicant shall serve its written responses to the Saginaw intervonors' questions as to the
~.80070H-p
m
,~._
+
-e,.4e.
w.
.. * ~
._.--.--._oe, D
r 2.
diesel power system.
3.
By September 30, 1971, all parties shall serve written responses, if any, to the submissions filed under paragraph 2, above.
4.
In view of the fact that the ECCS issues and en-vironmental issues have not yet been heard, and that there are certified questions not yet resolved, the Board does not feel it would be useful to set a date for " closing the record" with respect to any issues.
However, the Board believes that adequate opportunity has been given to all parties to present evidence and cross-examine with respect to all issues except ECCS and environmental issues.
Accordingly, unless the rulings of theAppealBoardonpresentlypendingquestionsh!or developments in the course of the hearing on other issues makes additional airing of such issues appropriate, the Board does not contemplate additions to the record on such issues after September 30, 1971.
5.
The Board does not presently intend to prepare find-ings of fact and conclusions,of law on these questions in advance of the completion of the ECCS issues.
- However, the Board believes that early submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law would be useful and invites 1/ Saginaw intervenors do have the right to limited cross-examination on chemical additives even if the Appeal Board sustains the ASLB.
r 3.
such submissions by all parties with respect to any or all of these questions after September 30, 1971.
B.
ECCS Issues.
The Board does not believe it is useful at this time to try to schedule the steps with respect to consideration of the ECCS issues.
The Board will reconsider the schedule when Applicant has completed its next filing with respect to ECCS.
However, the Board would like to advise all parties that in its view, the ECCS issues seem likely to be such as to be best covered by written ex-change of testimony; in addition, it is ordered that within 15 days after the receipt of the applicant's next filing on ECCS, the Mapleton and Saginaw intervenors shall file a detailed statement of the nature of the affirmative evidence which they intend to offer in suf ficient detail to provide Applicant an opportunity to prepare to meet it.
C.
Environmental Issues.
Pending the further steps co templated by the August 4, 1971, Statement of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Board will not attempt to draw up a schedule for the environmental issues.
The Board is concerned, however, lest delay in completion of discovery unnecessarily postpone the hearing and, accordingly, it is ordered that all parties serve and file all motions for discovery concerning issues arising under the National Environmental policy Act permitted under 10 CRF 82.740, 2.741, and 2.744 by no later than September 30, 1971.
O c
\\
1 4.
In addition, the Board hereby requests that all opposing intervenors file by September 30, 1971, a preliminary statement of their views on environmental questions. Such statements should cover at least the following:
1.
Identify those aspects of the environment, e.g.,
air quality, water quality, land use, etc. which they presently believe would be adversely affected by the j
proposed plant and specify in detail the nature of each adverse effect as they presently perceive it.
2.
Thc alternatives to the proposed plant which should be considered by the Board and the reasons, in detail, why they consider any of thdse alternatives to be preferable to'the proposed plant.
3.
Identify the factors which should be considered by the Board in its " risk-benefit" analysis with particular attention to the importance to be attached by the Board to the effect of the decision.
II.
The Mapleton Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss the Application, and Saginaw Intervenors' Motion of August 3, 1971, with Respect to Further Procurement and Construction.
A.
The Mapleton Intervenors' motion to dismiss the appli-cation is denied.
The motion is based on the erroneous argument that procurement of the pressure vessel in advance of a construction permit is a violation of the Atomic Energy Act.
It is not.
The practice of advance procurement has e e
..e
.,. ee e e. ee em e = W e ee e - em
-N h
n
.n-,
~-
r
l p
5.
been expressly sanctioned by the Commission and is not inconsistent with safe construction.
Finally, the argument that advance procurement will add pressure on the Board to permit construction is simply a new formulation of the argument rejected by the Supreme Court in pRDC v. International Union, 367 U.S. 396(1961) and in countless Board decisions since that time.
B.
The Saginaw Intervenors' motion to prevent additional construction and procurement is denied.
To the extent it refers to procurement it is not substantially different from the motion considered in II A, above, and is denied for the same reasons.
Those reasons probably apply to the portion of the motion dealing with construction but that question, as set forth in Applicant's Memorandum of August 13, is presently academic.
III.
Saginaw Intervenors' Motion for Subpoenas to Other Reactor Manufacturers.
The motion for subpoenas duces tecum to other manufacturers is flatly inconsistent with the Board's ruling in connection with iodine spray systems that a proposed reactor need not incorporate "the best available technology."
Accordingly, pending a contrary conclusion by the Appeal Board, the request is denied.
The Board does not, however, mean to preclude a request for such documents on a showing, at an appropriate time, of need for the purpose of testing the
-4w,, - - -
---~-m
-,-o
- - - ~.
m
_/
f.
6.
' adequacy of the ECCS system in this proceeding.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0+c
- Wb eM
-w Arthur W. Murphy,Chaffmag 4
August 26, 1971
=
4 i
l i
I l
l
~~ -
~ ~.. -
..g--,
~
-we d
7 N
a UNITED STATEb 0F AMERICA lt[f )/jh ~
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3
4
!.T. Jrn In the Matter of
)
T Irt*.
)
. :M!t CONSINERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-329, 330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the ORDER issued by the Eoard dated August 26, 1971 in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 26th day of August 1971:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Smith & Brooker, P. C.
Columbia University School of Iav 703 Washington Avenue Box 38 Pay City, Michigan 48706 435 West 116th Street New York, New York 10027 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Vice President and General Dr. Clark Goodman Counsel Professor of Physics John K. Restrick, Esq.
University of Houston Consumers Power Company 3801 Cullen Boulevard 212 West Michigan Avenue Houston, Texas 77004 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. David B. Hall Mr. R. C. Youngdahl Los Alamos Scientific IAboratory Senior Vice President P. O. Box 1663 Consumers Power Company Ios Alamos, New Mexico 8754h 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. Gtuart G. Forbes 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Redlands, California 92373 Midland County board.of Supervisors Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
623 St. Charles Street David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 486h0 Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Honorable Jerome Maslovski Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant Attorney General, State of Michigan Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Seven Story Office Building Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.
525 West Ottava Lovenstein and Newman Lansing, Michigan h8913 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
. - _ _a
h, b
- ~
50-329, 330 page 2 Honorable Curtis G. Beck Milton R. Wescel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Allen Kezsbom, Esq.
State of Michigan J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
Seven Story Office Building Kaye, Scholer, Pierman, Hays 525 West Cttava and Handler Lansing, Michigan 48913 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 1002P Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street William A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
Suite 1005 James N. 0 'Connor, Esq.
Chicago, Illinois 60602 The Dow Chemical Company 2030 Dow Center Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 4 %40 Berlin, Roisman & Kessler 1910 N Street, N. W.
William J. Ginster, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Merrill Euilding, cuite 4 Saginaw, Michigan 48602 James A. Kendall, Esq.
Currie and Kendall Mr. Wendell H. Parchall 135 North Saginaw Road RFD No.10, Mapleton Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 4%40 Dr. Vayne E. North, Chaiman Irving Like, Esq.
Midland Nuclear Power Committee Reilly, Like and Schneider P. O. Box 335 200 West Main Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Eabylon, New York 11702 l _ 'A jI d e' d i*
,,g
,2 Office of the Secretary of the Cortnission ec: Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt Mr. Wells N. Brown H. Smith t
-