ML19330A035
| ML19330A035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1971 |
| From: | Reis H LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007140823 | |
| Download: ML19330A035 (6) | |
Text
f,
~p
,n v s swwu
. aco. c. uut. > Ac. M" M,'MO LAW OrrtCd5 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN & Huis 1800 CONNCCTICUT 4VENUC. N. W.
WASHIN GTON, D. C. 20036 202 ase. Fees mostnf towtNSf tsN JACn n N L w s* A N
/?sp --0}.g)/x December 1, 1971
-.noso..nc..
/\\
ocw-n
(('
y:0 ;Ii971 * -h V"'
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman M-
..,q.
, y;
.:')
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g
i.c. t :
yf
..o
.[ /
Columbia University School of Law 4
g dry.QTi Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street
/
t' New York, New York 10027 In Matter of Cone >mers Power Company Midland Plant, Unita 1 and 2 Dacket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330
Dear Chairman Murphy:
In accordance with your direction at the November 23, 1971 hearing, Applicant herein submit.s,its response to Mr. Wessel's Draft Order of November 24, and its revised-proposed schedule for further Midlaridj, proceedings.
We are satisfied with the form of the Draft order,-
and strongly endorse its design to pinpoint the contested environmental issues and resolve those matters at the earliest time consistent with an appropriate respect for the rights of all parties.
In consideration, however, of the time already expended in this proceeding, we believe the suggested dates to be insufficiently tight, and accordingly suggest the following revisions:
1.
At 2.(a), incert " January 10, 1972" in the space left blank; 2.
At 2. (b), substitute "two weeks" for "three weeks";
3.
At 3. (a), substitute " forty-five days" for
" sixty days"; and, 4.
At 3. (b), substituto "two wooks" for "t.hron weckn".
If this schedule, which we believe would not unduly burdon any party nor prejudice its position, were strictly adhcred to, 8007140 W h
y Low *nssTIMN, Nuwx As & Rnm Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. December 1, 1971 final environmental hearings could commence during the.~.onth of April, 1972.
As directed, Applicant hereby submits a revised proposed schedule for further proceedings.
Again, we regard this time-table as tight yet fair to all parties.
We suggest that rigorous adherence to it, with extensions granted only in exceptional situations, would best serve all concerned.
Addressing ourselves further to the subject of expediting the proceeding, we wish again to express our strongly held view that a necessary condition to progress in this proceeding is the imposition and enforcement of the requirement that the Intervenors state their position on the issues and that the Board act on outstanding motions to that effect.
In this connection, wo emphasize that on August 26, 1971, the Board
" requested" all Intervenors to particularize their views on environmental issues, if only in a preliminary fashion.
On October 23, 1971, we filed our Motion For Order Requiring Intcrvenors To State Their Contentions, And The Bases Therefor, and for a Preclusion Order..No ruling'on this motion appeared in the Board's November 4 Proposed Order.
We believe that in order to effectuate the Commissidn's rules, the Board should take'the path followed by the ASLB in Point Beach 2.
In ordering all Intervenors to particularize their contentions, the Board there recognized that no Intervenor thereby lost any legitimate rights.
All that was sacrificed was the opportunity and incentive for interminable delay.
We call the Board's attention to so'me of the language in Point Beach 2 (Order of November 10/ 1971, at p.4):
1
...The purpose of prehearing procedures in a licensing proceeding before the Commission,...
is to identify issues that can be framed as early as possible.
The fact that more infor-mation might become available in the future is not excuse for failing to identify issues in a timely manner.
Thip proceeding is not a game in which any one bf the parties can lie in wait to pounce on errors or omissions of other parties.
The point is to get issues out into the open and proceep promptly to solvo them."
l-We unequivocally support this approach.
A ruling by the l
Board to this effect would be of' substantial value to the
?
1.dwicxuri: x, N uw M A N & ts F j
~'
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.
-3r December 1, 1971
, orderly expedition of the prococdings at hand.
We arc, of course, awarc that the AEC has recently scheduled a pu'elic rule making hearing with respect to acceptanca critoria for
- cmargency core cooling systems.
However, that action in no way ditninishes the obligation of the Intervenors to state their contentions with respect to ECCS issues.
Copies of this letter and the attachment have bcon sont to all of the individuals whose names appear on the attached list.
Sincercly,
.,o
,s
/,
HFR:m Attachments (2)
O b
e O
?
=
e w
+Qv
k' c -
21971 *'hc.s 9
'..a. <. unt. FAc. 5Mrl.3E b ;
r.
T3 ATTACHNENT A L,.
. '.f i
a
.e g.3;gA>' 7A-7 s
\\
roposed Schedule for Midland Proceedings N
I December 6 Applicant to makc documents availab1c and file responces to interrogatories in categories as to which no objection has bcon made.
Applicant to file list of witnesses on ECCS and environ-mental matters.
December 7 Westinghouse files appropriate pleadings, (Sct by Board affidavits and memoranda of law with respcct Nov. 23 to proprietary documents.
Tr. p. 5037)
December 7 Last day for opposition Intervcnors to file (Set by Board motions for discovery (interrogatories and Nov. 23 document production) with respect to ECCS Tr. p. 5015) matters.
December 10 Opposition Intervenors submit statement of
~-
contentions together with the bases for such contentions, with respect to ECCS matters based upon materials filed to date.
December 15 Saginaw Intervenors file written evidence with (Confirmed by respect to quality assurance (page 6, proposed Board, Nov. 23 Board Order).
Tr. p. 5042 December 15 Saginaw Intervenors submit written evidence with (Confirmed by respect to synergism contentions (page 7, Board, Nov. 23 proposed Board Order).
Tr. p. 5042)
December 15 Mapleton Intervonors submit written evidence with (Confirmed by respect to contentions III and IV (page 8, Board, Nov. 23 proposed Board Order).
Tr. p. 5042 December 15 Open for pre-hearing conference if Board (open date per considers appropriate.
Board, Nov. 23 Tr. p. 5057)
Januari,5, 1972 Hearing, if necessary, on Westinghouse proprietary (open date per documents.
Board, Nov. 23 Tr. p. 5057)
January 10 Staff files safety evaluation as to Midland UCCS.
n
O r
Janua_ry 15, 197_2, Itcconvenc hearing with respect to iodino removal offectiveness.
January 25 Opposition Intervonors submit statements with respect to final contentions and bases thorofor concerning ECCS adequacy with respect to mator-ials in AEC staff safety evaluation.
Januar;y 25 Opposition Intervenors submit written evidence on ECCS adequacy.
February 10' Applicant submits supplemental evidence on ECCS
~
adequacy in reply to January 25 filings by oppo-sition Intervenors.
Febr_uary 20_
Conference with Board.
Marcit 1 Hearings.on ECCS issucs of fact.
t e
e 4
4 4
e 4
e s
e
~.
ei.
y e
- ,-+-
-e.-
g
[ a...... -..3 g g, g, m
I,e :W wvrs:rN. N 8:Wal W l' lli;It ATTACU!!UNT D Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Honorablo Curtin B. Doch llavjd E. Kartalia, Esq.
Assistant Attorncy Goncral Robert Nculon, Esq.
Stato of Michigan Regulatory Staff counnel 630 Savon Story Office Building U. S. Atomic Energy Co: micsj on 525 '.!:s t Otta*.ta W.mhington, o. C.
20545 Lansing, !!ichigan 40013 John K. Rentrick, Eng.
Anthony Z.
Rois:can, Luq.
Harold P. Graven, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kesa.icr Vice Proaident and General
-1910 N Street, N. W.
Coun:iol Washington. D. C.
20036 Con:nno. rn l'ouer Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jamen A. Kendull, Eng.
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Currio and Kendall 135 North Saginaw Road Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Midland, !!ichigan 48640 Smith &'Brooker, P.C.
703 Washington Avcnuo Milton R. Uessc11, Esq.
Day City,I;ichigan 48706 Allen Kozsboa, Esq.
J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
William A. Crooning, Jr., Esq.
Kaye, Schoicr, Picrman, nays Jaucs H. O'Connor, Esq.
and Handicr The Dow Chemical company 425 Park Avenuo 2030 Dow Contor New York, Now York LUv22 Midland, Michigan 48640 William J. Ginstcr, Esq.
Myron it. Cherry, Esq.
Suite _4, Morrill Building 109 North Dearborn Street Saginaw, Michigan 48602 Suite 1005 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Irving Like, Esq.
Reilly, Likc & Schneider Honorabic William H. Ward 200 West Main Street Assistant Attorney General Babylon, New York 11702 State of Kansas Topcha, Kansas 66612 Algic A. Wolls, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Clark Goodman Board Panel Professor of Physics U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission University of Houston Washington, D. C.
20545 3801 Cullen Doulevard Houston, Texas 77004
% anicy T. Robinson, Esq.
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Dr. David B. Hall
-Office of the Secretary of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory the Commission P. O. Dox 1663 U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission Los Alamos, New Mexico Washington, D. C.
20545
[,
/m w,
Q C.*.
f,r_
REC 7,1971
- 3)
\\";<
~ g f
r;,.
,, v/
-