ML19329F690
| ML19329F690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1971 |
| From: | Wessel M DOW CHEMICAL CO., KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007100609 | |
| Download: ML19329F690 (4) | |
Text
s
._ Z m
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
[T-; 7-9/-
DOW SUGGESTIONS AS TO MATTERS WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT JUNE 7, 1971 CONFERENCE
. In accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Board's Order dated May 18, 1971, the following are Dow's suggestions for matters which sht,uld be considered at the further Pre-Hearing Conference to be held on June 7,1971:
1.
Synergistic and Other Interrogatories:
In its May 18, 1971 Order, the Board directed the Saginaw Intervenors to file by Nune 1, any written arguments they may have in support of their requests for answers to the so-called " syn-orgistic interrogatories."
If any such written arguments have been filed, the Board should rule on the issues presented.
The Board should also render its final decision on the AEC Staff's objections to the Saginaw interrogatories.'
The Board should also rule on the AEC docu-ments submitted to it in camera.
2.
Validity of AEC Regulations:
Opposing Inter-venors have submitted an " offer of proof" with regard to the factual information on which they base their contentions that Appendix D and Part 20 are invalid, and an additional ap-plicatic:..or discovery by way of oral depositions and further 8007100 6 0 9
/
document production.
The Board's Order of May 18, 1971, extends to June 7, 1971, their time to submit any further offer of proof.
The Board should rule on the issues presented by the.pending offer of proof and motion and on any new offer submitted by the time of the Hearing.
3 Opposing-Intervenors' Direct Evidence:
The Board has extended Opposing Intervenors' time to file their direct evidence, including identification of all witnesses, to June 7, 1971, and has limited the requirements for such filing to the three specified issues of (a) technical qualification, (b) financial qualification, and (c) common defense or security.
If such written evidence has been filed, the Qoard should consider its scope in defining such issues; if such direct evidence has not been filed or is in any respect deemed inadequate, the Board should to that extent preclude the submission of direct evidence by Intervenors on these matters.
If it has not previously done so, the Board should rule on Applicant's May 24, 1971 motion to compel 1
Intervenors to file certain additional direct testimony, and fix a date for compliance.
The Board should rule on Intervenors '
motion calling for the submission only of oral evidence at the Hearing.
2
r n
i 4.
Environmental Statement:
The Board should rule as to whether'or not the final environmental statement, when completed, is to be admitted into evidence at the Hearing for any purpose.
5.
Identification of Issues:
The Board should identify the particular matters as to which it wishes evidence to be introduced, and advise the parties of any other of its inquiries as to-which response will be required by June 17, 1971, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of its Order of May 18, 1971.
To the extent possible, the Board should indicate its preference as to the order of proof at the Hearing.
The Board should also indicate the extent to which it wishes to inquire into the adequacy of the AEC Staff review process.
Opposing Intervenors should be requested to identify any particular issues which they presently believe will be in substantial controversy, and should be directed to specify any such issues on or_before June 21, l
l 1971, to the extent then known to them.
6.
Open Matters:
All parties should be required to specify any pending issues as to which they contend i
3 i
em that the Board has not yet ruled.
The Board should rule on any such issue which is still open; the parties should be precluded from subsequent objection with respect to any issue not so. identified.
7 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS):
The Board should rule on Intervenors' ECCS motions, including the requests for documents, for transcripts and for preclusion of any further private meetings between the parties.
Dated:
New York, N.Y.
May 27, 1971.
Respectfully submitted,
//
7 SC Skom lfy/ $'/"* A KA
, $ CHOLER,VFIERMAN,/ HAYS
& HANDLER, Hearing Counsel for The Dow Chemical Company.
Of Counsel, Milton R. Wessel, Allen Kezsbom, Joseph P. Bauer, and William A. Groening, Jr.,
James N. O'Connor.
4
-.