ML19331A859
| ML19331A859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1972 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | KANSAS, STATE OF, Saginaw Intervenor |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A857 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230893 | |
| Download: ML19331A859 (6) | |
Text
...L
- i..'.
.' ;. ;7.i ; 372 > c i wo. umt. es n MUJO
~ '
]
9 CHIT 2D STATES OF A:IE3ICA
't!!2 A r 2 0 : I',g t cc;: :::,c ;;
+emsv' In the Matter of
)
)
CCHStBIERS pC'.!3R CC:9AIrl
)
Docket Hos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Flant, Units 1 and 2)
)
0?D2?
1.
The intervention of the State of I:ansas.
The Board is certifying to the Appeal Board a somewhat broader question than that originally contemplated in its order dated December 22, 1971.
In the meantime the Board has received
~
a letter dated Janu1ry 12,1972 from the Attorney General of Itansas which states that 1:ansas wants to remain in the. proceeding even if the fue. cycle issues are held to be beyond the scope of' the proceeding. The Board reserves jud. pent on the Kansas peti-tion until the decision on the certified question.
2.
With respect to all radiological issues other than ECCS and the questian of chemical additives to the iodine spray removal system, the record is closed.
3.
The evidence submitted by Mapleton Intervenors with respect to their combentions numbered III and IV is not sufficient to raise a substantial chn'lenge to the validity of Part 20 of the AEC regulations within the meaning of the Calvert Cliffs opinion and, therefore, the Board will not refer the question to the Co= mission.
t 5007230 $f }
G
T x.
- 4..ECCS In its order of December 22, 1971, the Board stated that in liS t of the Commission's notice (dated Irovember 26,1971) of a rule-
~
h making hearing on ICS, the Board would, tentatively, concern itself only with the issue of whether the ECCS of the I:idland reactor com-plied with the Interin Acceptance Criteria'.
In its Supplemental notice (dated Jan. 8,1972) the Con =ission specified that the pen-dency of the rule-naking was not to " affect the orderly resolution
... of the natter of energency core cooling" in pendin6 licensing
~
proceedin63.
The Board has given considerable attention to the question of how it ought to 3roceed. Logically, it seems to us we have the
~
follouing citernati7es:
1.
We can proceed as thou6h the national hearing were not going on. Were we to do so, we would be obliged to consider questions of conpliance with the Interim Criteria, as well as their validity.
Questions as to validity would presumably include the issue of validity gener"11y as well as their validity as applied to already pending proceeM ngs.
2.
We could postpone all proceedings until the conclusion of the national henHng.
3.
We couli proceed uith questions of e:apliance and post-pone questions as to validity pending the completion of the national hearing.
1
- ~ 4.
He could proceed trith questions of coupliance and post-pone decision on other cucations until later.
If after ec=plation of cur consideration of ec=pliance we tranted to proceed with the question of vclidity, we could take 2dventcqc of any part of the national proceedinc; rhich had been congleted.
Iione of the alternatives is entirely satisfactory. !Te are disposed to proceed with questions as to compliance but face the threshhold probles that we are not entirely sure as to the boundary betreen a challenge to compliance and a challenge to the validity'.
A reasonable first step, therefore, is to have opp.osing intervenors specify in what respects the proposed ICCS does not comply with the interim criteria.
(For these purposes the interim criteria are
~
~
assumed to be valid.)
'Ihe question of validity raises = ore difficult questions.
As a result of the national hearing the interim criteria vill either be repromulgated or changed.
It is inconceivable to the Board that changed criteria vill not be applied at least to reactors under construction which win almost certainly -- at the most optimistic schedule for applicants -- include this reactor.
If the interim criteria are repremulgated after the hearing, the question of validity will ipso facte be settled (subject of course to judicini review).
Under the C2lvert Cliffs doctrine the nest that could be accomplished by a hearing as to validity would be for the Board to receive evidence to the end of deciding whether there is a substantial case for refer-ence to the Commission. In view of the fact that the " case" to be
^
-h-made will be a substantial duplicate of the case beir4 made at the national hearing, already being censidered by the Comission, it would seem a logical absurdity for the Board to say that the show-ing is too insubstantial for Comission attention. The logical solution would be for the parties to stipulate to accept the national hearing as being in lieu of this proceeding. We are aware, however, that intervenors' counsel are afraid that to do so would waiye rights which they would have had in the adjudicatory proceeding.
In order to take maximum advantage of the pendency of the.
national hearing and preserve the intervenors' claim to additional "richts," the Board has tentatively concluded to proceed as follows.
1.
We assume that the intervenors are challenging the validity of the regulations,
~
~
2.
We further assume that the challenge consists of at least the showing being made in the national hearing.
3.
On or before March 31, 1972 or such later date as shall be fixed by the Board, opposing intervenors shall make such recuests for documents, subpoenas etc., denied to them in the national hearing as they deem necessary in this proceeding together with a statement as to their need and entitlement. Within fifteen days thereafter other parties shall serve objections etc. and the Board will rule thereon.
I l
March 20,1972 For the Atomic Safety and l
Licensing Board I
(j-ry/, 3 S,
.f I
g Arthur W. Murphy, CKai, man
,, 'y
,C 9(Yw
?.
IMITED STATES OF AMERICA ATCMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
f s j
- . 9 -
m
)
CO!; Sit 4EFS POWER CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-329, 330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 cnd 2)
)
CIR' UTCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that eepias Of (1) C?!23 :A TD RE723RAL TO THE APPFAL ECARD dated March 10,1972; and (2) O. m dated March 10, 1972, in the captioned catter have teen served en the following by deposit in the Lbited Sta.tes mail, first class or air mail, this 13th day of March 1972:
1 Arthur W. Murphy, 20-
-an Richard G. Cmith, Esq.
Joard S=ith & Brooker, P. C.
Atcmic Safety and L'
-.6 Columbia University Sencol of Law 703 Washingten Avenue
~
435 West 116th Street, Eox 38 Eay City, Michigan h3706 New York, Uev York 1C027 Ecrold P. Graves, Esq.
Dr. Clark Good =an Vice President and General Professor of Phyales Counsel thiversity of Housten John K. Restrick, Esq.
Consumers Power C mpany H}801 Cullen Boulevard ouston, Texas 77004 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. David B. Hall i
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Mr. R. C. Youngdahl P. O. Box 1663 Senior Vice President
[
Los Alamos, New Mexico 8Ukk Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue l
Dr. Stuart G. Forbes Jackson, Michigan 49201 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 e
l Redlands, California 92373 Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Midland County Board of Supervisors Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
623 St. Charles Street I
David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 j
Regulatory Staff Counsel
(
(J. S. Atomic Energy Ccemission Honorable Jerome Maslowski Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Seven Story Office Building i
k Jerome E. Shartman, Esq.
525 West ottava t
Icvenstein, Newman & Reis Lansing, Michigan 48913 1100 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C. 20036, N. W.
f'1 l
'I i
e I (
Ib w
l Ih 50-329, 330 page 2 l
Honorable Curtis G. Beck Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
l.
State of Michigan Allen Kezabom, Esq.
' i Seven Story Office Building Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays 525 West Ottawa and Handler Lansing, Michigan h25 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Myrcri M. Cherry, Esq.
Suite 1005 William A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street James N. O'Connor, Esq.
e Chicago, Illinois 60602 The Dov Chemical Company
!lg 2030 Dow Center Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Midland, Michigan k8640 Berlin, Roiaman and Koocler 1712 11 Street,11. W., hth Floor WL111am J. Ginster, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Merrill Building, Suite 4
~~
l Saginaw, Michigan k8602 James A. Kendall, Esq.
Currie and Kendall Mr. Wendell H. Marshall l'
135 north Saginav Road RFD No.10, Mapletorr-Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan h8640
,i Dr. Wayne E. North, Chairman Irving Like, Esq.
~-
Midland Nuclear Power Committee Reilly, Like and Schneider l.
P. O. Box 335 200 West Main Street Midland, Michigan 486h0 Babylon, New York 11702 i
Honorable William H. Ward Assistant Attorney General State of Kansas
'.j Topeka, Kansas 66612 t
d2 A& s, D !
'a s
Office of the Secretary of the (Anunission f
cc: Mr. Murphy
, i Mr. Engelhardt J
ASLBP l
N. Brown i
Reg. Files f 4 I
L a