ML19331B060
| ML19331B060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1973 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250758 | |
| Download: ML19331B060 (5) | |
Text
W%
t UNITED STATES OF Ah! ERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
In the Matter of
)
9
' ^ -
)
S 2
o;
. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos 50-329
)
- 30
- 0sfErg Q l
DT Y
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
SEE 7
[--
l Y
$y:l!'4:cm' b'
ch}ll%
l
~
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO SAGINAW INTERVENORS' l
" MOTION TO ENFORCE COMMISSIONS' REGULATIONS" jg\\
I On August 21, 1973, the Saginaw Intervenors filed a motion for an order
)
(a) rev' king the Midland Plant construction permits pending "a definitive o
and unequivocal finding that [the applicant and its two principal vendors]
I have complied and will comply with the Atomic Energy Commission regu-1 lations with respect to quality assurance and quality control in connection with the construction of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2"; or, in the alter-j native, (b) staying the effect of the permits pending such a finding; or, also in the alternative, (c) directing that cause be shown why the permits 5
1/
f should not be revoked or their effect stayed pending a similar finding.
i We are at a loss to understand what purpose is served by the motion.
Certainly it raises ne new issue. The issue whether the record on quality
~
1/
uMotion to Enforce Commission's Regulations", August 20,1973, p.2.
I THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES 6 80072507$8.
assurance and quality control matters supports continuation of the con-struction permits was already under consideration by the Appeal Board at the time the motion was filed. Indeed, in its most recent decision in this proceeding, ALAB-132, the Appeal Board expressly stated its intention to determine "whether construction should be allowed to continue under the outstanding construction permits". RAl-73-6, p. 436 (June 28,1973).
Nor does the motion, by itself, contribute any information that would not i
otherwise be available to the Appeal Board in determining whether the record supports continuation of the construction permits. The intervenors' arguments on the state of the record on quality assurance / quality control matters are set out in their comments filed pursuant to the Appeal Board's order of July 26, 3/
1973.- The motion simply emphasizes the conclusion which the intervenors would have the Appeal Board reach on the basis of those arguments, namely, that the record is inadequate.
z/ We do not abandon our view that the Appeal Board lacks juris-diction to decide this question. See "AEC Regulatory Staff's Answer to Saginaw Intervenors' Motion to Enforce ALAB-106',
June 19,1973. However, in view of ALAB-132, we simply note this objection in order to preserve in the record the position outlined in our earlier brief.
-3/ "Saginaw Intervenor's Comments upon the Regulatory Staff's Comments on Applicant's Report Pursuant to Condition 1 of ALAB-106 and RO Inspection Report of June 26-28, 1973",
August 20, 1973.
e t
4
=s ss s.
. o s, es
. - ~....
4
g
_3_
s i
Since we doubt that any reply to the motion is required in these circumstances, we shall only note our opposition to the motion and our disagreement with the i
. underlying conclusion (Motion, p.2) that the inspection reports which we forwarded to the Appeal Board on July 20 and 24,1973 show "a lack of appro-j priate QA and QC safeguards in connection w.th these dockets". The applicant has already discusssd at great length the numerous " startling revelations" the 4/
intervenors find in these reports.^ As that analysis demonstrates, the l
intervenors have, by consistent misinterpretation of the inspection reports,.
i-identified a collection of alleged deficiencies which either never existed or have been resolved through appropriate action by the staff or the applicant.
l Certainly the intervenors have pointed to no problem which would warrant revocation of the Midland Plant construction permits or any stay in their effectiveness.
I l
The instant motien should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, s
t N'dkN 0;ylqi i
David E. Kartalia I
Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland l
this 4th day of September,1973
\\
y " Opposition of Consumers Power Company to Saginaw Intervenors' j
' Motion to Enforce Commission's Regulations' ". August 31, 1973, pp. 8-23.
I 0
t r
Ik#
s i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
l BEFORE' TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
t In the Matter of
)
-l
)
' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 i
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
{
CERTIFIC/tTE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "AEC Regulatory Staff's Answer to Saginaw Intervenors' " Motion to Enforce Commissions' Regulations", dated September f
4,1973, in the captioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 4th day of September,1973:
I*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
Board Columbia University School of Law U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Box 38
. Washington, D. C.
20545 435 West 116th Street New York, New York 10027 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. David B. Hall Board
.Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory U. S. Atomic Energy Commission P. O. Box 1663 Washington, D. C. 20545 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 l
. William C. Parler, Esq.
Dr. Clark Goodman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal-f Professor of Physics Board University of Houston U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 3801 Cullen Boulevard Washington, D. C.
20545 Houston, Texas 77004 Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
Harold teis, Esq.
Knittle and Vogel Newman, Reis and Axelrad i
i 814 Flour Exchange Building 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
310 Fourth Avenue South Washington, D. C. 20036 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 8
_m 5
! y l
+
t I
Irving Like, Esq.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schneider 135 N. Saginaw Road 200 West Main Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Babylon, New York 11702 l
l David Comey, Esq.
Harold P. Graves, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street i
Vice President and General Counsel Suite 1001 I
- Consumers Power Company Chicago, Illinois 60602 1
212 West Michigan Avenue j
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Honorable Vern Miller Attorney General 2
j Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
Topeka, Kansas 66601 l
Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler.
Richard G. Smith, Esq.
i 425 Park Avenue Smith and Brooker, P.C.
New York, New York 10022 7G3 Washington Avenue Bay City, Michigan 47806 I
James N. O' Conner The Dow Chemical Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2030 Dow Center Panel l
Midland, Michigan 48640 U. S. Atomic Energy Commissicn j
Washington, D. C.
20545 l
Ms. Mary Sinclair 4
5711 Summerset Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal j
Midland, Michigan 48640 Board i
U. S. Atomic Energy Commissien Honorable William H. Ward Washington, D. C. 2.0545 Assistant Attorney General Topeka, Kansas 60601 Mr. Frank W. Karas i
Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Jenner and Block Commission One IBM Plaza U. S. Atomic Energy Commissicn f
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C.
20545 William J. Ginster, Esq.
Suite 4 Merril Building Saginaw, Michigan 48602 r
a;c L a-David E. Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff e
l n..
.n
_