ML19331A481
| ML19331A481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Coufal F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007170740 | |
| Download: ML19331A481 (5) | |
Text
.
A to
( $
N y I9
$ 96,4 Y
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
r.
In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos f5 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
MEMORANDUM Y'f/ 7l On March 11, 1977, we issued an order governing several matters pending before us in this suspension hearing.
We then indicated that this Memorandum would be issued giving l
reasons for our actions.
Because all Intervenors in this case, with one excep-tion, are proceeding on a consolidated basis, "Interven6rs" will be used in reference to that group.
We refer to the exception as "Dow."
l l
LICENSEE'S MOTION TO DEI!AY 1
On March 4, 1977, the Licensee served on the Commission a motion that further hearings on the issues remanded by the Court of Appeals in the Aeschliman case be stayed because the Supreme Court had recently issued a writ of certiorari therein.
On the same day, Licensec served on this Board a l
motion to suspend the evidentiary hearings until the 80 0 73 7,9 y y o g
-, Commission acted.
We declined to halt the hearings and ordered their resumption on March 21, 1977, as had been previously contemplated.
Our reascas for denying the motion are not profound.
The first is that we are now proceeding as ordered by the Commission and we are reluctant to do otherwise unless we are directed to do so.
Practicality is the second reason that inclines us to continue.
Evidentiary hearings on suspension began November 30, 1976, and to this date we have been in session 20-odd days.
Perhaps another 10 or 15 days will be needed to finish.
We have had to recess several times because of the unavailability or the incapacity of Board members, counsel or witnesses.
A stop now would likely result in several weeks delay in begin-ning again while schedules are reviewed and adjusted to This delay, add'd to hearing time accommodate the change.
e remaining would extend a decision date into the summer.
If, however, we proceed and in a few days the Commission orders us to stop, nothing is lost except a few days time and expense on the part of the parties involved.
This lost effort though i
significant would not seriously affect the Licensee, Dow, or the Staff; the only real effect would be on the Intervenors and they urge us to proceed.
,~ MOTION TO DEFER Intervenors urge that our order denying financial assis'tance be certified or referred for review.
The reasons for the requested referral are that in this case the Board has~ indicated that Intervenors have provided valuable assis-tance in developing the record and that the Commission has lately provided financial assistance in the GESMO proceeding.1!
That Intervenors can and do provide worthwhile assistance in licensing proceedings was recognized by the Commission in its November 12, 1976, policy statement.2/
That document specifically provided for funding of Intervenors in the GESMO proceeding while denying it in licensing cases.
We find no circumstance in this case that causes us to certify or refer a question so recently and clearly dealt with by the Commission.
DISC'DSURE OF TESTIMONY Pre-filed testimony was provided in this case in November, 1976.
Hearings were conducted during the weeks of November' 30, January 18, January 31, February 7 and 1/
In the Matter of Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel, Docket No. RM 50-5, Order dated March 4, 1977.
2/
In the Nbeter of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Financial Assistance to Participants in Comminsion Proceedings) NRCI 76/11 494, 502.
,, February 14, 1977.
By this time all of Staff and Licensee pre-filed testimony had been presented through the witnesses and cross-examination of those witnesses had been concluded.
By February 10, there was indicacion by the Staff and the Licensee that they each wished to provide further testimony in their direct cases.
To obtain sufficient information so that the Board might be able to control the dimensions of the case, it was ordered on February 10 that Staff and Licensee pre-file all planned additional testimony whether relating to their direct or rebuttal cases by February 28, 1977.
That testimony was filed and the Board, at the request of Staff and Licensee, ordered that Intervenors' witness Dr.
Timm be not shown the testimony until after he testified.
l l
Our March 11, order released to Dr. Timm some of that testi-many and further ordered that at the conclusion of his testimony Dr. Timm could read all pre-filed material so that he could help prepare Intervenors' attbrney to cross-examine witnesses.
The reason for the protective order was that the dis-closure to Dr. Timm of riouttal material prior to the time that he testified might unfairly apprise him of the areas of inquiry the other parties wished to pursue in cross-examination.
c Usually a witness is not aware of the rebuttal case before he testifies and it seems reasonable to the Board that Dr. Timm be not so e'orised.
The parts ordered dis-closed did not seem to be of a nature that disclosure would interfere with cross-examination.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,i i
hkw c..LL r d=
Frederic J. Q6ufal, Cyairman h Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 16th day of March, 1977.
(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _