ML19331A357
| ML19331A357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Midland  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1971 |
| From: | Cherry M MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY, Saginaw Intervenor |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160924 | |
| Download: ML19331A357 (3) | |
Text
.
.b e
DOCKET WOMBER
/
2800. & um, EAc. 58-%7,-
McDERMOTT. WILL & EMERY ga til W C ST MoNROC STRCCT
/t DOCIETED C"'C^
'8 8 8 g,-
ElEC 3
sie-rnauaus e.cooo cam.c aooncss MAY 131971
- 3
' * ' ' ^ " '
f ca..i m me 4
ren,ryms8 May 11, 1971 A
q, THis DOCUMENT CONTMNS Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman POOR quAUTY PAGES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Columbia University School of Law Box 38, 435 West 116 Street Ucu York, N. Y. 10027 Re:
Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As counsel for the Saginaw, et al., Intervenors, I have just learned that recently a certain series of tests with respect to emergency core cooling systems has taken place at the Idaho Reactor Test Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
I do not know the results of this test nor the parameters of the test itself, but I have been informed that the results in terms of the effectiveness of the emergency core cooling; system were dubious.
I have also learned that the Regulatory Staff is engaging in a re-evaluation of the emergency core cooling system on existing plants.
As a matter of fact, Atomic Energy Commission trial counsel in the Indian Point case wrote the Board that the Staff could not at this point conclude as to the effectiveness of the emergency core cooling system.
Further, on April 29, 1971, Mr. Engelhardt wrote a letter to the Palisades Board containing the following paragraph:
"We are conducting a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the e.crnency core cooling system for the Palisades Plant,.and it is tossible that this tart of our submission uill not be complete by June 17, 1971."
l l
dp e
80 07160 %
U
^
O m
Arthur U. Murphy, Esq.
May 11, 1971
. page two
,.l Mr. Engelhardt told me on the telephone today that the review being pursued by the Staff may also affect the Staff's posi-tion with respect to the emergency core cooling system for the Midland Units.
Mr. Engelhardt said, however, that any re-evaluation would have to await the results of the Staff's study now in progress.
Since Mr. Engelhardt has informed the Palisades Board that the Staff revlow may not be complete by June 17, it foi-lows that the Staff review will not be complete for any June 1 or June 8 hearing in Midland.
This matter is of utmost concern to the Intervenors, and it should be of utmost concern to everyone including the Applicant and the Board.
If the aforementioned tests demon-strate the ineffectiveness of the emergency core cooling sys-a tem in the event of a LOCA, then it would appear that the pro-posed units could not be licensed for a construction permit on the basis of its presently tendered design.
I have today informally asked the Atomic Energy Com-
~'
mission to produce for my inspection a description of the test performed at the Idaho Test Facility as well as a statement of the results.
Mr. Engelhardt did not know whether he could pro-vide this information.
In order to save time by this letter the Saginaw, et al., Intervenors move, pursua,nt to the Rules of Practice of the Atomic Energy Commission, for an immediate production of the test and its results which form the basis for re-evaluation by the Regulatory Staff of the emergency core cooling system.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the fact of this its possible ramifications should caution the Board no, test and t to ac-cept ouickly suggestions that discovery from the Atomic Energy Commission Staff by way of interrogatories and otherwise are not important to this proceeding.
Moreover, we would point out that Applicant has not called this development to the Board's attention, and if Applicant states that it *was not aware of the development, then that is only an additional reason for pursuing i
d$ncovery against the Regulatory Staff.
It now appears,i4r. Chairman, that a substantial sys-tem, that is the emergency core cooling system, one that is e
1 G
S O
j L
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.
May 11, 1971
_ page three N
critically safety related, has not been fully revjewed finally by the Regulatory Staff.
Iniced, if.the emerconey core cool-ing system is suspect, the most credibic accident under any interpretation is the so-called " China" accident, and if this is correct, the whole process of discovery must be re-evaluated.
Moreover, we call attention to the fact that Appendix A to Part 2 (II. f) strongly urges that the Staff Safety Evaluation be re-ceived 2 treeks prior to the time for the filing for Petitions
. er'.*ene, a long period prior to any hearinc.
Thus, if the r
Staff Evaluation is still und7r way, the AEC rules themselves contemplate a postponement of the hearing.
It is in the best interests of everyone concerned that the Board not convene a hearing until this matter is re-solved, and we offer this as an additional reason for follow-d ing the formula test for the convening of a hearing as set forth in our draft proposed order included in our letter of May 5, 1971.
We should appreciate a prompt ruling in connection with the production of document motion contained herein.
Respeofullyyours,/
y W,'41 '
t l
Myron M. Cherry I
/
i MMC /sm cc:
Dr. Clark Goodman Dr. David 9.
Hall Mr. Stanley T.
Robinson, Jr.
All Counsel of Record M
9 g h
~
.