ML19330A248
| ML19330A248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1971 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007151037 | |
| Download: ML19330A248 (3) | |
Text
.
[" lb.
p
]-
.y
/
g :tt n a
.! m:90-M1,t3f) j?,
ggs-
' ' ~ ~
e NOV15 M "
UllITED STATES OF AMERICA cg rje5llgf7 7/
ATOMIC EllERGY COMMISSION
'j, 4
jl k
hp BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIllG COA,lill Of%"2,'l,;-- ~
~
In the Matter of
\\
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No',.
50-329and50b30 l
(MidlandPlant, Units 1and2) p-a -7/
RESPONSE OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIM 0HY OF DR. HUVER On ik,vember 2,1971, Consumers Power Company (applicant) filed a motion to strike the written testimony of Dr. Charles U. Iluver
. submitted on behalf of the Mapleton intervenors.
The applicant challenges.the testimony on the ground that its discussion of the effects
)
of radioactive and thermal effluents is not relevant to th'e Midland I
Plant, "which is designed for essentially zero radioactive liquid waste release and the discharge of ooling water from the cooling pond to the Tittabawassee River at a temperature within one degree Farenheit of the river temperature! at the point of discharge."
l The Huver testimony was served by letter dated September 28, 1971
"[a]s further evidence [i.e., in addition to the Eckert testimony previously served] that Mapleton I as undertaken to assemble further environmental evidence."
In his testimony, which is in affidavit form, Dr. Huver discusses a number of matters, including thermal effects, biological concentration of radioisotopes, synergistic relationships TMS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PW QUAUTY PAGES
' 0007151 O Q
G g
L.
~,
between thermal and radioactive pollution, biological hazards of tritiina, and the suitability of the applicant's site.
Ilis ultimate conclusion is that plans for construction of the Midland Plant should be abandoned.
In our view, the !!uver testimony is subject to at least three potential objections.M First, there is the question of its timeliness insofar as it deals with radiological matters, since it wos filed after the September 15 deadline specified in the Atomic Saf ety anti Licensinq Board's order of August 26, 1971.
Second, there are potential ques Lions of relevancy raised by the testinony, such as, for example, those identified by the applicant as grounds for the instant notion.
- Third, it is by no mans clear from the face of the affidavit that Dr. Iluver can be qualified as an expert in every subject area covered in his
- testimony.
We see no need, however, for the Board to confront any of these questions at this tine.
The lluver testimony is not part of the evidentiary record of this proceeding.
For this reason alone the applicant's motion to strike is premature.
Furthermore, the testimony has not been foi1aally offered into evidence and it is not clear to what contentions of the e
intervenors it would relate if and when it is so offered.
To the extent it is intended as evidence to be adduced during the llEPA phase of the hearing, we suggest that it would be appropriate to defe, consideration of the applicant's motion at least until the issues for that phase of the hearing have been defined.
In large part the lluver affidavit appears to challenge the validity of the Conunission's " Standards for Protection Against Radiation" 10 CFR If As we take the position that objections to the lluver testinony are premature we do not mean to imply that the testimony is subject only to the objections stated herein.
e
~..
()
r 3-Part 20, and thus relate to the Mapleton intervenors' contentions III and IV.
To the extent it is intended, cr must be construed as an offer of proof directed toward raising a substantial question t.*.
to the validity of those standards, consideration of the questions raised by the applicant shuld be deferred until the Board decides whether, as proposed in the Board's draft order of flovenber 4, the deadline for filing such offers will be extended beyond Septenher 15.
If the deadline is not extended, the Board may refuse to consider the radiological parts of the affidavit on grounds of timeliness.
On the other hand, if the deadline is extended, it would be appropriate to defer ac. tion on the applicant's motion until tho' new deadline has expired, al wh-ich time the I;oard will be in a position to consider the intervenors' entire
~
Part 20 case, of which the Huver affidavit may be only a part, t
For the foregoing reasons, the applicant's motion to stril:e the lluver testimony should be denied a' premature, but without prejudice to renewal at a more appropriate t me.
Respectfully submitted.
,/ l l pf.(- /, ti!!<' ' c ii.
ygs David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulclory Staff Dated at Bethesda, flaryland this 12th ' day of Novenber,1971 4
!