ML19329F710
| ML19329F710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1971 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007100632 | |
| Download: ML19329F710 (7) | |
Text
1
~
A 4
OCKET NUMBER g [#
00CKETED PROD. & UTIL, EAC. M AMe330
(
MAY171971
- u 8jj'[,'Nf[
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- mo ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
'O
@A-4 ro In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330 (MIDLAND PIAIC UNITS 1 and 2)
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES Rulings with respect to objections to interrogatories addressed to various parties by Saginaw intervenors.
A.
Interrogatories addressed to APPLICAIC 1.
The Board is of the view that No.1, as modified by inter-venors (T. 731) has been answered.
12 and 13 Sustained on the ground that the questions call for analysis of the consequences of an accident which if found to be a credible acci-dent would require denial of the construction permit.
{
17b and 17e (both in part). Sustained on the ground that the questions call for speculation by applicant about a final design not required at the construction permit stage.
214 (in part). Sustained on the ground that it calls for speculation as to matters not in issue in this proceeding.
38 1+1.
Sustained for the reason given with respect to Nos. 12 and 13 60 (in part). Sustained subject to renewal on a showing that the details of the program requested are necessary to consideration of an issue in this proceeding.
81 (in part). Sustained on the ground that thermal discharges are not in issue in this proceeding.
8007100 $ 3 2 h
2.,
, =.
- 90. Sustained on the ground that the information sought is not required" to be furnished at the construction permit stage.
- 92. Sustained for the reason given with respect to Nos.12 and 13 However, applicant is directed to describe the research or other work bein6 done on the question of the possible effect of thermal shock as a result of the injection of water in the event of a LOCA.
108 (in part) and 114 (f). Sustained for the reason given with respect to Nos.12 and 13 n6 and 117. Sustained en the ground that they call for applicant to specu-late about the consequences of an unWted range of pos.sible operator ac-tion, and are unduly burdensome.
132 (a, c, and d). Sustained on the ground that they inquire into the pos-sible consequences of industrial sabotage, which is not a matter at issue in this proceeding.
145 and 146. Sustained because the information sought is not relevant to the issues in the proceeding. Answers to the questions w uld serve no seri-ous purpose and could embarrass applicant.
156. Sustained subject to renewal for good cause after Intervenors have examined the contracts furnished to them by applicant.
167 Sustained on the ground that the question calls for answers, many of them highly speculative, on matters not at issue in this proceeding.
174. Sustained on the ground that applicant's possible consideration of fossil fuel plants is not relevant to any issue in the proceeding.
183, 187, and 195 (all in part). Sustained on the Bround that the information sought is not relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
210.
Sustained for the reason 6 ven with respect to Nos. 12 and 13 i
n n
t '
E.
Isterrogatories addressed to Dow Chemical Company 1 - 232, 289 - 291, and 294 - 306.* Sustained on the ground that these interrogatories are identical to those asked of applicant, the appro-priate party to answer them.
Whether Dow did or did not consider infor-mation cap. led for by the interrogatories is not in issue in this proceeding.
Dow has no burden of proof on any issue and has indicated (in its answer to No. 233) that it does not now intand to offer any affirmative testimony.
234 - 238, 252, 254, 255, 261 (in part), 262 and 264. sustained on the ground that they seek information relevant to Dov's need for power and preference for nuclear power, matters not in issue in this proceeding.
239, 241, and 236. Sustained on the ground that to answer them would im-pose a burden on Dow wholly disproportionate to tne benefit to Intervenors.
If Intervenors make a showing that particular effluents are affected by radioactivity in such a way as to call into question the validity of the Part 20 HMts as applied to this plant, they may ask appropriate questions about those effluents.
242, 270 - 273, 283, and 285 sustained as unduly burdensome. The questions seek infomation about such matters as Dov's promotional and public-affairs activities, their opinion on radiation effects and their, not applicant's, plans to meter radiction discharges from the plant.
The rationale of this ruling also applies to the contention of Intervenors that the answers to Hos. 292 cnd 293 are insufficient.
M To the extent that objections by applicant were sustained, similar objections by Dow would be sustained.
t i
I
e
/.
243, 245, 214, and 251. Sustained subject to renewal on good cause after Dow furnishes to Intervenors a list of reports, analyses, and tests of the type asked about perfomed by Dow.
24 (in part). Sustained on the ground that no good cause is shown for in-formacion about Dow employees who have had no connectivn with this plant.
2 Q Su3tained as unduly burdensome.
Dow's consideration of this plant is not in issue in this proceeding.
249. The Board is under the impression that this interrogatory was with-drawn (T. 873), but if not, the objection is sustained on the ground that the information sought is irrelevant to this proceeding.
256, 258, 268, and 310. Sustained on the ground that they are unduly burden-These questions seek infor=ation about incidents such as the fire at some.
the Rocky Flats plant. Dow's possible culpability for other accidents is, if at all, only remotely related to the issues in this proceeding.
259, 304 - 306. Sustained on the ground that they are unduly burdensome.
Our concern here is with the inte5rity of the system by which process steam is supplied and not with Dow's reaction to possible contamination.
260, 263, 265, 266, and 267. Sustained as unduly burdenso=e. Dow's reasons for intervention are not an issue in this proceeding, and they have stated in answer to No. 233 that they do not now intend to offer affirmative proof on any issue.
- 19. Has been answered. (T. 903) 3o9 Sustained on the ground that under controlling AEC' decisions the possi-bility of industrial sabotage is not being considered by the Board.
- t 311.(in part) Sustained subject to renewal after receipt of the answer by Dow pursuant to discussion at the meeting of Counsel on April 3,1971. (T. 943) i
e C.
Interrogatories addressed to Midland Nuclear Power Committee.
Intervenors have served a set of 243 interrogatories on Midland Nuclear Power Committee (Midland), 232 of which are identical to Nos.1-232 served on the Applicant. Midland has answered No. 233 and objected to the rest. The Board hereby sustains the objections subject to a right to re-new on a showing the Midland is in possession of information material to this proceeding which is not available from another party.
Although admitted as an intervenor, Midland's participation to date has been min h 1 They have stated in answer to No. 233 that they do not intend to offer any affirmative testimony; their cross-examination, as that of all parties, will be subject to the control of the Board.
In the circumstances, the interrogatories seem intended more to hat. Tass than enlighten.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
{
Qlf jl ^ <&.
ArthurW. Murphy,Chaiban/
New York, New York, May 13, 1971 1
o
l' E.
[
^
IETITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC EIiERGY COGIISSIGH In the Matter of CONSt14ERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-329, 330 (Midland Plant, thits 1 and 2)
)
)
clarnnCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Rulings with respect to objections to interrogatories addressed to various parties by Saginav intervenors" issued by the Board dated May 13, 1971 in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 17th day of May 1971:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Smith & Brooker, P. C.
Columbia Ibiversity School of Iav Box 38 703 Washington Avenue 4 5 West 116th Street Bay City, Michigan 48706 3
New York, New York 10027 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Dr. Clark Goodman Vice President and General Cot.nsel Professor of Physics University of Houston John K. Restrick, Esq.
3801 Cullen Boulevard Consumers Power Company Houston, Texas 77004 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. David B. Hall Mr. R. C. Youngdahl Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Senior Vice Precident P. O. Box 1663 i
Consumers Povar Company Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 212 West Michigan Avenue Dr. Stuart G. Forbes Jackson, Michigan h9201 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Redlands, California 92373 Midland County Eoard of Supervisors Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
623 St. Charles Street David E. Karta11a, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel Midland, Michigan 48640 U. S. Atomic Energy Cec: mission Honorable Jerome Maslowski Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
6 0 Seven Story office Building 3
Jerome E. Sharftan, Esq.
525 West Ottava Lovenstein and Newnan 1100 Connecticut Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Washington, D. C. 20036, H. W.
v 50-329, 330 page 2 Honorable Curtis B. Beck Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Allen Dezsbom, Esq.
State of Michigan Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays 630 Seven Story Office Building and Handler 525 West Ottava 425 Park Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 New York, New York 10022 Honorable Patrick E. Kovaleski William A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General James N. O 'Connor, Esq.
State of Michigan The Dow Chemical Company 630 Seven Story Office Building 2030 Dow Center 525 West ottava Midland, Michigan 48640 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Gladys Kessler, Esq.
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kessler McDermott, Will & Emery 1910 N Street, N. W.
111 West Monroe Street Washington, D. C. 20036 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Edward Eerlin, Esq.
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kessler Berlin, Roisman & Kessler 1910 N Street, N. W.
1910 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 i
Washington, D. C. 20036 William J. Ginster, Esq.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
Saite 4, Merrill Building 1
Currie and Kendall Saginaw, Michigan 48602 135 North Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall F7D No.10, Mapleton Dr. Wayne E. North, Chairman Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland Nuclear Power Committee P. O. Box 335 Midland, Michigan 48640 Scho '
D a-Office of the Secretary of the Com oion cc: Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt Mr. Yore N. Brown H. Smith
_