ML19331A695
| ML19331A695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1972 |
| From: | Like I REILLY & LIKE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007210677 | |
| Download: ML19331A695 (7) | |
Text
m o
' Gl.
o u.... :.
d'
?(
..m.4.uut um. Ee-M M 90 -
gy' ocu:no O
)
cu 0
(Gill1.1D72t*q
.t. e.u.m o
~
' '~ W ts UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,'b ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION atta,_
e IL&l----
In the Matter of 6 f '/j",
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-329 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
MEMORANDUM OF MAPLETON INTERVENORS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S MOTIONS WITH RESPECT TO MAPLETON 'S AREAS -TO -BErCOVERED IN THE MIDLAND HEARING I.
Mapleton intends to cross-examine on the environmental impact of those aspects of the Midland project identified in the s tatement accompanying the letter of Mapleton's counsel dated May 1, 1972.
The arean identified arc discussed in environmental submissions of applicant and Staff, and Mapleton has the right to cronn-examine as to the applicant's and Staff's conclusions, supportive da a and reasoning contained in such materials.
The Board's. prior rulings do not foreclose Mapleton from in-quiring into applicant's and Staf f's environmental. conclunions and their substantiation.
AI c. 4 :, num).<tre d
't,
4, 5,
9, 11, J H, 24 at A 7'1 h:1 V' - n' a l.
50A0 g
p,
2.
-bcon' ruled out of the proceeding insofar as Mapleton's right to inquire into their environmental consequences.
Each of the. plant's effluents - non-radioactive solid wastes (#3),
sanitary wastes (#4), radioactivity (#5), (#29) causes an environmental effect.
The Staff has a duty to make an independent deter-mination on the project's impact on water quality.
Hence it is not concluded by the certification of the Michigan Water Resources Commission certification (#9).
It is self-evident that major floods (#11) and chem-ical explosions (#18) are environmentally significant events and a proper subject for interrogation.
The ability of applicant to predict the postoperative chvironmental impact of its radioactive, non-radioactive and thermal pollution (#24) depends on the scope and adequacy of its surveillance programs, an area properJy open to Maple-ton's inquiry.
II.
It is difficult to understand on what rational ground applicant seeks to preclude Mapleton from questioning into areas 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 30 and 31.
Applicant's environmental materials deal with each of the areas and express the conclusion that no adverse en-
3.
vironmental consequences may be anticipated from any f actors relevant to these areas.
Assuming, as applicant does, that these areas are unrelated to Mapleton's earlier contentions, Mapleton's right to cross-cxamine is not dependent on its earlier contentions.
It derives from the fact that:
1 - applicant and Staff have the environmental burden of proof on which issue is joined, and Mapleton has the right to cross-examine into whether they can meet such burden of proof; 2 - Mapleton's environmental contentions, alone, and in combination with those filed by Saginaw in-tervenors and EDF, have framed the substantivo questions involved in the listed areas.
III.
Mapleton does not interpret the Board's previous rulingn as foreclosing further evidentiary hnarings on areas 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 2.
Although radiological, health, safety, and synergism matters may have been concluded as such issues por sc, they have not been litigated in terms of their environmental im-p a c t a r.<1 the co::t-br.nnfi t analysi s marida t< d by the tin t i.onal
4.
-m Environmental Policy Act, Calvert Cliffs, and the AEC's implementing regulations.
Radiological health, safety, and synergistic ques-tions must now be heard by the Board in their environmental context, and Mapleton is entitled to cross-examine into the causo-effect relation between these and environmental factors.
Finally, applicant's objection to area No. 7 is with-out merit.
Inquiry into alternative methods of meeting-Midland's alleged power needs is clearly permitted by NEPA, Calvert Cliffs, and is discussed at length in applicant s environmental submissions.
IV.
Applicant has-failed to show surprise or prejudice entitling it to the draconian relief of virtually silencing all opportunity of Mapleton to exercise its due process right to cross-examine.
The listed areas sufficiently apprise thr applicant of the areas it must prepare on and the witnesses it must present for cross-examination.
Applicant must be ready to defend its position on each subject discussed in its environment.a] rr:po r ts.
m w
m
-s
5.
It is not feasible to provide applicant with a mail order cross-examination in advance of the hearings.
Appli-cant is in reality requesting written interrogatories, a procedure not required by the Board's order of March 27, 1972.
Mapleton's list of cross-examinati(n areas have sufficiently identified the type of questions to be asked, and they are in a form capable of factual answer.
V.
Mapleton opposes the convening of a pre-hearing con-forence on May 13, 1972, as an unnecessary harassment and a waste of the time of the Board and the parties.
The instant motion can be decided on the memoranda without need of oral argument.
The Bpard may also issue an order prescribing the order of proofs at the environmental hearings.
Mapleton requests the following as the logical sequence:
Applicant's direct case Cross-examination by Staf 5 Cross-examination by Mapleton Applicant's redirect Recross, if necessary Staff's direct caso Cross-examination by Applicant Cross-examination by Mapleton Staff's redirect Recross, if necessary v
-w
Reasonable adjournment Mapleton's environmental proofs Cross-examination by applicant Cross-examination by Staff Mapleton's redirect Recross, if necessary The above sequence may of course be interrupted at any time by the Board's questions.
For the reasons stated, Mapleton requests that appli-cant's motion to preclude and for the convening of a further prehearing conference be denied.
i Dated:
May 9, 1972.
Respectfully submitted WILLIAM J,-GINSTER, ESQ.
IRVING
- IKE, SQ.
by:
/
Irying I.ike /
Attorneys for Mapleton Intervenors l
l 1
1 1
7.
CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed May 9, 1972, postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Se :retary of the commission, and a',1 counsel of' record.
Irving Like Attorney for Mapleton '.*ntervenors e
= ~ ' " *
" ~