ML19330A009
| ML19330A009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1971 |
| From: | Cherry M MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007140730 | |
| Download: ML19330A009 (4) | |
Text
-
__._._.__?_..
,.g
--m C
s V'
DOCKET NULCLR THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 999gg POOR QUAllTY PAGES McDElfMOTT. WILL & Exniev Ill WCST MONROC STRCCT OHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60603 il-
},,
sia -FH ANMLIN 2 2000 s
CAHLF A f dm L ',';
b
[/,,
"P4 31. A M^
April 8, 1971
\\
,.V.'
g [ v) M.
cn
/Q i
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman 6
g W KEi20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board N
Columbia University School of Law 435 West ll6th Street 9;
APR121971
- 32 I:ou Ycrk, U. Y. 10027
. \\.
g, n,w, 3,,,,,,
f' Ice trwewo Re:
Docket Nos. 50-329
/
50-330 4
g to Daar Chairman Murphy:
This letter is in response to your Order of April 3, 1971, requiring the so-called Saginaw Intervenors to submit environmental interrogatories based upon their re-view of the PSAR and the Staff Safety Evaluation.
As you will recall, during the prehearing confer-ence in New York we mentioned to you that we had some inter-rogatories prepared in connection with environmental matters but had withheld filing them on the grounds that the environ--
mental issues had not yet been defined in this hearing.
We also withheld filing these interrogatories based upon the Board's representation at the January prehearing conference that adequate time would be provided for the serving and i
filing of relevant environmental interrogatories subsequent to the decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as to the scope of the environmental issues.
At the Hew York prehearing conference I undertook to submit by April 10 such I
interrogatories as were already drafted, dealing solely uith environmental' issues.
Upon returning to my office and going over the drafted interrogatories with Mr. McCue, we concluded that they merely scratched the surface of the questions we pro-posed to ask if this hearing were, as is required by law in our opinion, to deal with the environmental issues in a full l
and complete manner.
Accordingly, it does not seem sensible l
80o~7140 7 3,0 g
h.
H
1_..-
~.
b h
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.
April 8,-1971 page two at this point to file a feu interrogatories leaving the imprescion that all of the environmental qucchionn have been raised.
Moreover, since the Board has yet to decide the role-vant legal issues, and the Staff has yet to file its Detailed Environmental Statement, it appears to uc that the spending of time and limited funds to complete a scarching inquiry into environmental matters now vould be burdensome at the leant nd incomplete at best, and we cannot choose to pursue a half-hearted effort.
The time to accomplish the task is when every-one in directed to the came goal.
EDF and we are filing our reply to opposition to our joint motion, and ue will have more to say on thic point.
On April 5 and 6 we were in Jackcon, Michigan ceview-ing Applicant's documents.
Applicant was cooperative in making available to us much of what we wished to see.
Copies of the documents ue selected are being processed,and we uould hope to have them for review the week of April 12.
There were categor-les of documents we wished to see but wor'e not permitted to do so.
We will have to await a detailed revicu of the docu-ments and ansuers to interrogatorier when we receive them to determine whether to place this question formally before the Board.
In reviewing Applicant's documents, it was apparent to us that critical decisions as to synergistic effects and the tertiary steam system (reboilers))was and ic being made by Dow, Bechtel and Babcock & Wilson (B&W with Applicant taking the
' position that it is relying upon Bechtel and B&W to both decign a plant to meet AEC requirements and satisfy Dow's requiremento for process steam, including the resolution of Food and Drug Administration problems.
Were we in the possencion of such documente in New York, we believe the Board would not have sus-tained many of Dow's objections to interrogatorico.
- Moreover, if the Board is inclined to rule in favor of Dow on the deferred matters, we ask that the Board await a viewing cf such further information as we have found.
Additionally, we believe what we found in Applicant's documents will be nufficient to require Dou to produce documents and therefore trust the Board will rigorou,cly enforce Don's obligation to provido a lict:ing of documents required by the Board's ruling in New York.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.
April 8, 1971 par,e three While in Jackson, we discussed the nccoccit:r of vicuing relevant documentc only in the pocconcion of Ucchtel and B&W, that is, documents which were a part of the develcp-ment of the PSAR, etc., but which Applicant docc not pocconc.
I have concluded that it makes more sense to cuait a vicuing of such documents and evaluate information thus far produced or being produced, in an effort to narrow the demands to be made upon Bechtel and B&W.
The alternative is pressing dic-covery of docmacnta nou uhich I would think would be unruly, cince many ccientific incues of contest have yet to be framed.
By this letter we also move the Board to:
1.
Remove the May 1 deadline for the filing of Intervenors' direct testimony; 2.
Remove the May 17 date for hearing; 3.
Provide by rulings for adeqtat,c pre-hearing diccovery and preparation; and L
4.
Re-schedule dates for hearings, etc., far enough in the future so that work can be done in order for the hearing to be meaningful.
In support of our motion we cite the following:
yet pr(a)
The Detailed Environmental Statement is not epared; (b)
Applicant has filed tuo amendments to the PSAR within the last three ueeks; (c)
The Staff has not completed its culling of documents, a task begun in December, 1970; (d)
The resolution of certain interrogatories directed to Dou, Applicant and Midland Huclear Committee remains 'open; (e)
The Staff has not yet formally responded to our interrogatories, except to state that they have neither. the time nor the inclination to answer them;
.. -. _ - -.. -.- ~ -
- -e O.
O Arthur U. Murphy, Esq.
April 0, 19'(1 par.c Cour (f)
Applica.nt's answers to interroca. tories and documents have not yet been received, let alone analy::cd; (c)
The environmental issues have yet to be dec.irled; (h)
Questions presented, if any, by Applicant's and Staff's annuers to interrogatories have yet to be presented; (i)
The revicuing of relevant docw:lents in the possession of Bochtel, B4:U, Dow and the Staff has not yet been started; (j )
Discovery upon environmental matters is at a standstill; and (k)
The scientific and other related issues have yet to be framed by the discovery process.
Resp ctfully, /,
u
/, y s[ ",r (.C W Myrdr M. Cherry
[
j
/
MMC /sm cc:
Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Goodman Secretary, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission All Counsel.of Record
--