ML19344A077

Motions Re Environ Matters,Eccs & ASLB 710826 Order That No Further Oral Evidence Will Be Received W/O ASLB Leave. Motions to Rescind Order,To Dismiss OL Application & to Produce ECCS Documents Designated Roe Included

ML19344A077
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/30/1971
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19344A073	List: ML19344A072 ML19344A077 ML19344A078 ML19344A080
References
NUDOCS 8007290949
Download: ML19344A077 (29)

Text

h'-

(%jgga

/

~

g g , , y w <u.i n w ... ui.o

) ER00. & UIll. EAC. N-N,N 4

g gitT ES - i-

-W ~\. ' UNI.TED STA'1ES- F-AMERICA OCT pgp F 7 ATOMIC ENERGY QOMMISSION g BEFOPF THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD in .a ,

i .

In the Matter lof ) .

) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMER POWER COMPANY

) 50'-330-

)  ;

(Mitf.and Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

MOTIONS OF SAGINAh' VALLEY, - ET AL'. , INTERVENORS WITH RESPECT TO EiWIRONMENTAL MATTERS, EMERGENCY' CORE COOLING SYSTICM MATTERS AND THE DOARD'S ORDER OF AUGUST 26, 1971 I

Below fol3cw a series gf sepa, rate Motions of Saginaw Valley Intervenors, et al. .

I i f , 1 I

e .

l Motion .No. I I Saginaw Valley Intervenors , et al. , move the ~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pursuant to the Rules and Regulations s

of the Atomic Energy Commission for an Order rescinding the Board's Order of August 26,1971!inParagraphI,A.1,thereof,  ;

I '

that no further oral evidence wiql be received except by leave of the Board. . The grounds for this  !

Motion are as follows:

)

i i

1. Section 556(d) -of the Admir.istrative Proceduro Act'(5 U.S.C. !iS56 (d) ) provides in pertinent part.as follows:

"A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence and to conduct such cross examina'-

tion'as may be required for a full and-true disclosure of the facts'.- In rule making or determining claims 80 07290h

p- 8

.,q-for money or benefitst or applications for initial licenses an agency may when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the sub-mission of all or part of the evidence in written form."

Intervenors,.as any party, have what is tantamount to an absoluto right to submit their kvidence in oral form and may not bc 1rcstricted to 'the filing. of documentary, evidence, absent findings by the Board, based upon the substantial evidence, that no prejudicc will result. The, Administrative Procedure Act does not permit a Board to restrict a party's right to.

submit oral evidence upon the grounds ,that it will eliminate hearings or expedite proceedings. The only critoria for permit-ting an agency,to disp ~ense with oral evidence is upon fi-Sings

~

that "a' party will not be prejtliced thereby" and the Board has made no such findings, e

2. Section2.743of{ art 2oftheAtomicEnergyCom-mission's Rules of Practice codify the require.7ents of the Administrative Procedure Act and grant every party "... the right .to present ... oral .

... evidence ...." Although Section-2.743(b) providos for written testimony, that rule is in the nature of a suggestion rather than a deprivation of a party's ab' solute right ' to submit oral evidence. Section 2. 74 3 (b)

~

incorporates ,the -test of the Administrative Procedure Act, that is, = that- oral evidgnce may; not be restricted unless a party',s j

~ rights will not be _ prejudiced thereby and in addition further- ~

l i

. I l

l

(

provides that; notwithstanding a y prejudice, a party may not bc required to' waive his cright to present oral evidenec'if he int.erposes an objection. Thus, .the Regulations go. even farther than the Administrative Procedure Act and .provi.de that- even i n

. the absence of the showing _ of prejudico, a party may object to the imposition of a written testimony rule and such an objection prevents the Board 'from entering an Order to the contrary.

Intervonors have continually objected to any restriction prohibit-ing oral evidence and continue to proffer such an objection.

- The reasons for intervenors objections are as follows:

t-A) The submission of written testimony by

~

Applicant eliminates an opposing party's right to crosu-examina tion . This is particularly important in this case where Applicant's witnesses have not been note-

. worthy-for their candor and credibility plays an important part in the resolution of proceedings;

?

l B) The elimination of cross- cxamination of i

Applicant's and Regulatory Staff's witnesses provents a probing of' foundati n and oth'er. cupport, if any, underlying their. submissions. Since matters of

o nuclear safety and cnvironmental protection are j evolutiosary, the use of documentary evidenco doce not assure that support for evidentiary submissions l 2

.. i

s .- .. .

g- -

i s, are sufficient; -'

C) LSince ASLB's hre part-time Boards they will

, be less likely to prob 6 an applicant or' regulatory staf f submission, if they have to do so in writ ing;

-whercas, a submission made during the. course of a-hearing lets a Board member easily question it; and i

D) Documentary evide,nce is essentially evidence carefully drawn by a lawyer witn an effort t_ avoid controversy. A. witness requi, red to testify orally may not have the benefit of hiding behind .a document, but rather must explain his statements and conclusions clear 1*y- and fully to the understanding of the Board.

and- the other parties.

3. Intervenors will be prejudiced by restrictions against the presentation of oral ' evidence- and as well as by permission apparently granted to 'the' Regulatory Staff and the Applicant to submit evidence in written form. The right.to cross-examination is not satisfied by permission to file counter testimony, since such a naceduro eliminates cross-

- examination entirely, . permitting only rebuttal testimony.

For the . above reasons we request the Board to rescind

'its -directive with fespect to' ora'l testimony and o dr er that

~

all parties may-be. permitted to s,ubmit evidence in oral form.

I

~

n

-4

O.

i g

l i

If the Board feels thet the proceedings would be served by the

- Applicant and Regulatory St'aff being required to submit their presentations in writing in-advance of.an oral hearing, then ,

thflintervenors do not have any objection, so long as such written ' testimony is thereafter gubject to cross-examination. l 6.

Notion No, II P

Intervenors fmove the Board pursuant to the Atomic .

Energy Commission Rules of Practice for the entry .of an Order dismissing the Application, or in the alternativo for an order requiring the Applicant and the Regulatory Staff to show cause why .the Application should not be dismissed, upon the . grounds that the Applica~nt and F.egulatory Staff have failed-to demonstrato acceptability of the subject Emergency Core Cooling Sys tem an'd ,

have not demonstrated' any reason .to support a belief that they i

.willbeinapositiontoresolve[suchEmergencyCoreCooling System problems. The specific grounds for this Motion are as follows:

i

1. - On June 19,-1971 the Atomic Energy Commission I

adopted Interim Acceptance Criteria ,

for Emergency Core. Cooling Systems. _These Criteria (and specifically footnote 2 at page 8 thereof) failed-to approve the Edergency Core' Cooling System of Babcock & _ Wilcox,- the reactor-venl dor in these dockets; r

.2, on June ^1,1971 -in 6 pen hearing, intervenors moved.the. Board for Judgment on the grounds that the Applicant

~

,a .

I' f

r j ~

. i e

• 5 had. failed to meet-such Interim Criteria and urged the Interim

~

~ Criteria _ as .an admission against interest of Applicant and Regulatory Staff; r

3. TheMotionofintehvenorsinJune, 1971 was made more than 2-1/2 years after the filing of' the Application during -

which' time Applicant had f ailed ~ bo satisfy the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to~its Emergency Core Cooling ystem for t .

those dockets. If Applicant had been'in a position to resolvo the controversy,.one would have assumed that it could have done

+

x) during that 2-1/2' year period

4. The failu're of AppIidApt to meet the Interim

~

Acceptance Critcria was confirmed on the record by both Applicant and Regulatory Staff when they admitted that the -Emergency Cor'e Cooling System problem had not been resolved and in f act, the hearing was recessed specifically to accommodate their admitted failures;

5. OnJuly,.1971',Appficantrepresented to the Board and. the parties -that it would submit further information toward l resolution of the ECCS problem on or before September 1, 1971.

Applicant has not~ met that deadline and has not given any reason for this Board to believe~ that even if it' is given an additional year'it will be -in a position to ! resolve the - Emergency Core ,

Cooling Sys' tem problems; 9

, .-6=

I

-p ~.

I

6. No party has a vesked right to permit a hearing

~

to be in recess indefinitely and have i the luxury of the adrinistrative process boing held up while it attempts to work

-out-its own problems, particularlyfproblems which appear insoluble. 1The failure of Applibant to have resolved its

~ Emergency; Core' Cooling System problems while continuing to have ,

its Application pending.has and is continuing to prejudien-

, intervonors and the public ' interest .for at least' the following reasons:

A) - Intervenors must continua to prepare for a hearing on environmental.and other matters, all of which become. moot given a failure to have resolved the Emergency Core Cooling System ' problems; -

B) There is no vested right in Applicant or Regulatory Staff. to have the hearing recessed indefinitely unti1' Applicant and Re ulatory Staff have resolved their differences, wh.le at'the same time requiring-inter-venors .to prepare for un hearing on environmental: matters'

- which may-become totally-irrelevant; L

C) The indefinite' recess at the request of Applicant and- Regulator'y Staff is straining the adminis-trative process and is! causing the public to invest valuable funds;and time whichLcould be expended on other y p -, , c , -

--.s -e -...r-

r .-

important matters; and i

D) IThe object of a public hearing is not to 0

-save the Midland Units or Babcock & Wilcox Company from the consequence- of their short. comings; _and particularly 'is this so here when neither the Appli cant nor the Regulatory Staff have seen fit to explain to any of 'the parties, ldt alonc the' Board, whether the delay to resolve ECCS gproblems will be fruitf ul, i

For the above reasons intervenors renow their Motion of June 21, 1971 to dismiss the ppplication on the grounds that, as a matter of law, Applicant has failed to meet tile Interim Acceptance Critoria .for Emergency Coro Cooling Systems. In the alternative, intervenors move the Board to issue an Ordcr dire'cted to Applicant ~ and Regulatory Staff to show cause why' the Applica-

~

tion.should not be dismissed. .If the Board adopts the second alternative motion the Board should require the Applicant and Regulatory Staff- to stato in detail the following:

A) - By what date Applicant intends to submit further ECCC informatihn to +.he Regulatory Staf f; D)' Has Applicant submitted' any further ECCS information to the Regulatory Staff an,d if so, why

'i has not such-information been distributed to the

• other' parties and the Board; and-

~A'

.- 8 .- - ' .

, .'4- ( .

.C) . What problems remain . to be resolved with respect'to Babcock and Wilcox Energency Core Cooling

~

System and what stcps are being taken by the Applicant-and7the Regulatory Stpff to resolve those problems.

Absent satisfactory response to such Show. Cause Order, the Board has every right and indeed an obligation 'to dismiss the Application. If after dism4ssal, Applicant is in a pouition to establish the safety-of its Emergency Core Cooling System, it can always renew its . application at a time when it 'will be prepared to move forward without causing. prejudice to intervenors and the administrative process.

Motion No. III Intervenors. move the Board, pursuant to the Ru]cs and

- Regulations of .the Atomic Energy Commission for an Order permit-ting intervenors ninety (90) days after receipt, if any, of sub-missions by Applicant and Regulatory Staff with respect to the-Emergency Core Cooling System in order to request and complete discoveryfthereon, if necessary,1and in order to adequately analyze such submissions. In support of this Motion, intervenors-state as follows: ,

J 1 .

1.- Applicant and Regulatory. Staff havo'had moro

than- 2-1/21 years to resolve the Emergency Core Cooling System -

_g_.

y . --, ,, , - . ~ , , - , w

r- V -

s -

n: I problems and have not yet been able to do so. Applicant has failed to meet.the Interim Acceptance Criteria published by the-Commission on. June 19, 1971 and has thus far demonstrated an inability to comply with such criteria .-

1

2. Applicant was supposed to have submitted Emergency Core Cooling System information on or before September 1,1971 but has f ~ iled ts. do so;.moreover, t,he enclosed story from the ,

Midland. Daily News indicates that Applicant will be unable to i j

supply such information~until at!least November 1, 1971.  !

3. If applicant meets "the November 1,1971 date, it will have had almost 3 years to analyze the Emergency' Core Cooling '

System information and more than'4 months to analyze its Emergency j- Core Cooling System in light of bhe Interi.n Acceptance Criteria, both of which indicates that the problems, if soluble, are l

• . b extremely complicated.

l I

?

4. The Regulat'ory s taf,'f indicated that it would need :

j  ;

i a minimum of six weeks to analyzq Applicant's submission when  ;

made even though it is privy to the current reovaluation process.

Intervenors-are-entitled to no less consideration.

l .

5. The L Board's Order of August 26, 1971 requires

' intervenors to -state. the nature o}f their af firmative evidenca.

within -fif teen (15)- days af ter receipt of Applicant's next filing

'l

.. L . -.

~. .- ..: -

nn ECCS.. 'This period of time does not give intervonors sufficient opportunity.to analyze. .IAdeed!under such-Order.intervenors cro not privy to 'and will not have the benefit of either .hc R29ula-

~

tory Staff's submissions and deliberation, (or the pr enent ly ongoing' discussions with Applicant and Regulatory Staff) which will;be critical to.any'realistI,c analysis by intervonors or any

~

of their potential witnesses. Under the circumstances, the fif teen day timo limit is arbitrary. and discriminatory again.st the intervonors, f

~

'6 . Indeed, if intervenors aro in a position to assis t the Board with raspect to ECCS problems, they shouId ha given adequate opportunity to do .co, in light of the fact that other parties have:been given practica'lly an unlimited time in preparing their information. .

For all of the above reasons, 'intervenors move the Board to rescind that portion of. its Order of August 26, 1971 contained in Paragraph IB thereof and Order that intervonors

~

l i

will be given a; period of ninetyi (90) ' days af ter receipt of Applicant and Regulatory Staff'siECCS submissions to request and secure discovery, if necessahy, and prepare for cross-examination.and affirmative submissions..

h m m I i l

1

g Motion' po. IV Titervonors move the Board pursuant to the ~ Ru]cs and Regulations off the Atomic Energh Commission .for an Order i

requiring the Regulatory Staff po producc 'certain' document.n i

not tearlier produced, dealing with Emergoney Core Cooling

.I Systems - and ~ bearing - the designa tion . " ROE" . In support of this 1

Motion intervenors state as'follows: l

1. On or about September 9, 1971 intervenors were- 1 informed that a series' of documents. dealing with the effectiveness of Emergency Core Cooling Systems and the recent Idaho semi-scale tests are in existence but have not heretofore been mado public

~ by ' the Regulato'ry Staf f. Intervenors do not know the exact name of these docunents, 'despite their. efforts at securing furtlier information, but do know that' they bear. the designation " ROE" and that the Director of Regulation has si'pplied such documents to persons 'other than the Regulatory Staff;

2. Intervenors believe that the'information contained in such documents'will be relevant and beneficial to an analysis of the-Emergency Core Cooling System; and

3. Intervonors have no other way to obtain such documen ts.. . Intervenors need all relevant ECCS information available to other parties in order adequately to participat'e fully

-in those; proceedings.

~.

h y- _ ,

, q -

, .Y, i

.~

-(

g e

I6rfthe-ab6ve reasons, intervonors move ~the Board I to order the Regulatory Staff to '_dentif" such documentation and upon identification to -provide copics to the parties and

. i the. Board. , I

. l Motion No. V  !

I e

1 Intervenors , pursuant _ to .the Rules and Regulations 13f the Atomic Energy Commission) move'the. Board for the entry i

of an Order requiring the Board, upon its. own initiative, to reexamine further matters of quality assurance and quality;contro1~

.with respect to those dockets. In ' support of this Motion inter-venors state as'follows:

~

r 1 Intervenors are, have1bten and will continue to

~

i compile information dealing witd ina'dequate quality assuranco and-

- quality L control procedurcs inst (tuted in connection with these 1

- dockets. Intervonors, howcVer,^have limited resoureca and arc t i finding ~it difficult. to secure witnesses who. will objectively;

. assess the, quality ' control = and ' the quality assurance procedures ,

4 or assess general. questions:of Bechtel and Babcock and Milcox j responsibilityfas constructor add. fabricator.

j

~

2. 'Intervenors believp that they have r'aised on the

..  ? \

o .

- record:a ~ substantial issue:with respect to:the quality controli and' quality / assurance proceduros for. these dockets and with

~

I ,

a

~ J

p respect to the reliability and attitudc of Dochtel and Applicant to build a safe plant. In this connection, we call all.cntion -to the following: .

A)

The record of quality assurance and quclity control performance by Bechtel and Applicant in connection with the Palisades plant; ,

B) The inspection reports of tho_CompJiance Division ~with respec to these dockets; C) The testimony of Compliance Division personnel in these dockets that they are "not comfortable" thus ,far with quality assurance and quality control per-formance; '

0 D) The fact that, the reactor vessel and other components are substantially completed without as yet specific on-site invespigation or inspection by the Compliance Division; i

6 E)

The fact that {the Commission 'has recently_

instit'uted a new set od'Complianco Criteria for I

quality control and quality assurance and Dechtel and~

Applicant are in the prbcess of revising their procedures for these' dockets in light of'such criteria; and I

l

~

s

m

• t F) The ~ f act that quality assurance and quality.

control are significant and paramount issues in con-nection with the ult imate safety of a Nuclear Power l

Plant, as evidenced by recent minhapc at the :;urry and l

Monticello plants, which mishaps worc related to poor l ,

or inadequate quality assurance and quality control.

3. Intervenor,s, as a representative of the public interest, do not- have suf ficient rosources and manpower adequately i

to explore the quality assurance and quality- control issuo. This L Board, on the basis - of the record and'the importance of thc issue, i

l nhould not be satisfied with asso.rtions by witnesses of Applicant and Rcoulatory, Staff but should on its own Motion make a thorough and'intenso investigation inta tua procedures to be used which, invcstigation judges the assertions of Applicant, Regula tory Staf f ,

Dechtcl= and Babcock & Wilcox by their past performances. To do this adequately .the Board should initiate an investigation of.  ;

a representative: sample of plants built by Bechtcl; of reactor l

l; vessels built by -Babcock & Wilcox;of the success of Applicant i-i in quality assurance and quality procedures generally in the

~

L constructing of power plants, whether nuclear fueled or not; and

! - of - the ~ review procedurcs' of. the; Regulatory Staf f and thn compliance i

Division:with: respect to their !, ability at preventive inspection

~

L l

l-Ldurinc tlus course- of construction.

e .

4. Intervonors realize that if the Board grants thic

. Motion 'it willl bola' major and important undertaking. Intervenorn f

, , - , n - a ~, -. , , . . - - -

p .

J bc31ovo, however, that this Board can mako an important and .

offectivo contribution in this akea by launch .nq such an investi-gation.

.5. .Intervenors are making this Motion in the nature of. assisting the Board, since only I it has resources and authority to emb' ark upon such investigatio'n.

f Accordingly, for the above reasons intervonors requent that the Board enter an approprirate order or orders to begin an investilgation of quality assura$ce and quality control in accord-anco .ith. the suggestions made above. If tho. Board fools inclined f-to launch such an investigation 'o'n its own Motion,'as we believe it must, intervenors suggest tnat the Board solicit the views of all other parties with respect to structuring such an i'nvestiga-tion. We believe that'the investigation by the Board contemplated by thi's Motion would immeasurably serve.not only the interests of these dockets butalso the'interdsts of nuclear safety generally.  !

4 e

I f

a I

h

/

.. m Motion No. VII Intervenors, pursuant,to the Rules and Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission) move the Doard for the entry of an Order permitting'intervenbrs to file discovery motions on enviror.nental issues up to and inc]uding a period equal to ninety (90) days after the preparation of a detailed environ-Iacntal impact statement by the Regulatory Staff. Alterna ti vely ,

intervenors recuest the Board to rescind its discovery Order of August 26, 1971 and await setting any dcadlines until af ter it

, has received the~ views of all the parties as contemplated by Motion No. VIII below, and document production is 'substantially complete.

Motion'No. VIII ,

Intervonors, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission, move i the Board to impose upon Applicant, Dow Chemical Company! and the Regulatory Staf f oblica-I

~

tions to file. on or before Or:'.ober 30, 1971 their preliminary

. statomonts on-environmental questions in the nature as set forth on page 4 of .the Board's Order of August 26, 1971 and to respond to the suggestions on environmental matters filed herewith, as

, e Exhibit B-hereto. Insupportoh'thisMotionintervonorsrefer the Board to pages .4-5 :of ,the letter.' addressed to the Chairman which accompanies these MotionsIand our earlier letter of .

August.10, 1971 l

y i

~

(~ ,

. I Motion No. IX

- I Intervonors, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission,, and without prejudico to

~

their rights pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, an amended, the, National Environmental Polidy Act, the Federal Watcr Pol-lution Control Act, asamended,{theAdministrativoProcedure Act, and Revised Appendix D to Part 50, move the Board for the entry of' an order requiring ' pro, duction of documents in the possession of Dow Chemical Co. , Applicant and the Regulatory Staf f, all as set forth' on Exhibit A hereto. In support of this Motion intervonors state: .

A) Intervenors do not have sufficion.t informa-1 tion upon which to make a detailed and specific .

environmental analysis in connection with these dockets and have need of these documents in order to assist in the preparation of such an analysis; i

B) All of the documents are believed to r

contain relevant information or information.which would: lead to relevant information;

.C) All of the documents refer to issues properly cognizable pursuant to the National Environ-mental' Policy Act and 'the cost-benefit cual risk-bonefit o.1alysis required.

5

-RM-

.g- p t ,

u D) Intervenors neod thoso docunants in order to prepare and submit interrogatorics and prepare

- for depositions whh.ch may, respectively, have to be filed or taken in connection with an environment.a1 analysis; and i i

'E) Without production of these documents intervenors will bo hampered in the preparation i

of their case as well a.s in tl eir rolo of ascisting the Board in.its duties. Indeed, without the Regulatory ~St,affoktheBoardhavingthebenefit of production of- these documents, it is unlikely that a sound environmental review can be accomplished.

6 4

6 i

l t-4

.. .(

Motion -No. X j.

I Intervenors, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Atomic ' Energy Commission, .and without prejudi co to their ' rights pursuant to the ' Atomic Energy Act , _as amended, the Nittional Environmental Policy Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the Administrativ,- Brocedurc Act and Revised Appendix D to Part 50, move the Donrt to order the answering of the following interrogatories carlier filed and ruled irrelevant upon the now erroneous ground that they involved matters outsidcithe. commission's jurisdiction. Also includad are interrogatories not earlier answor6d _ or objected to in part because.of a claim of burden or irrelevance but, which are now clearly within the scope of any cost-b'enefit analysis and thus should be answered.

i '

.A. As-to Regulatory Staff

'239, 243, 252, 286, 287, 291, 293,- 294, 295, j

~

316, 317, 319,-321, 322, 323, 324, 326,

',131, 3 3 2 ', . 3 3 5 (c) and 337. l B. $s ' to 'Applicarit

-24, 78,.B1, 174, 183,,137, and 195.

C. -As-to Dow Chemical j

. l 234-238; 239, 240, 241, 243, 245, 246, 248, l 251, 252, 254,/255, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 267,,270s.274-277, 280-286, 288', 304-30G-and 309.

g e __

, . I .

In support of this ' Motion intervenors stato as follown:

A) Intervenods_ do not possess suf ficient docu-mentaryinformatiojwithwhichtofileinterrogatorien dealing with environmental matters and the required cost-bene.fitanalyjis; I

B) Intervenors will be in a position to serve such interrogatorids af ter' production' and examination I

of the documents cdntemplated by Motion No. IX above; C) Intervonors have reviewed all interrogatories earlier filed and have determined that those listed 1

in this Motion are directly relevant to environmental matters and/or a cost-benefit analysis., The inter-rogatories listed in this Motion have been -ruled irrelevant, hhvo only been answered in part or have been earlier answeged insufficiently; D) Accordingqy, intervenors believe it would .

lxt useful to have the above interrogatories fully-answered now in an! effort to' accomplish some dis-covery matters now; while the Board and the parties are pursuing other' discovery and procedurni matters in! connection with implementation g

of the Commf nnion't:

Revised Appendix Dito Part 50.

O e

l

. .,~

1

' Motion No. XI t

1 Intervenors, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of

the Atomic Energy commission, without prejudice to their right P or ability to file at a more hppropriate time further inter-

. rogatorie.s, move the Board for the entry of an Order requiring 1

- the.following parties to answer the following interrogatories:

A) As to Dow Chem.ical No. 312. List each product, chemical compound, impurity and contaminant produced at your. Midland facilities, whethor byf accident or design, which is a.known!. carcinogen or mutagen; or L which is.a'cuspected carcinogen or I mutagen. In connection with your answer

. and with respect to each such p'roduct, compound, contaminant or impurity listed, l also , state'the following: -

l a. Their doses and/or toxicity as produced or released; and

b. All reports and analyses dealing I with carcinogenic or. mutagenic effects.

B) As to' Regulatory Staff-No. 338. ~ Separately-in connection with the risk-benefit and cost-benefit _ analysis required by the Atomic Energy Act,.as amended, and the National Environmental

. Policy Act,.as amended, stato the following:

a.. Each risk or cost which- has been taken

- into'censideration in connection with

, your approval of the proposed Midland Units;;

t d22-

._ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -._ =

p f

~.  ; ,

F J

b. Each b<tnefit which you believe will be achieved by the construction or operation of the proponed Midland

. - Units.and what is the relative balanc-ing welght which you.havn-accorded

- each shch benefit with respect to each risk and cost set forth in your

to a above; and answer! ,

c. What dkta have you relied upon to conclupe, if you do, that there is a risk - to the public (identifying uuch risk or risks) if the proposed Midlan'd Units are not constructed or are Leon-structed as a conventional or non nuclear fueled power plant.

-th). 339. 'In connection with the xdquirements of the National' Environmental Policy Act and Re' vised Appendix D to Part 50 of the= Commission's Regulations, state in detail' the following: .

a. Each standard and criteria-that-you have 6 sed or will use in connection with the required risk-benefit and cost-bonefit analyses;

b. The name of each person, firm, corporation or state or federal agency

~

which you have contacted or will

. ' contact in connection with your

preparation of'the Detailed

-Environmental Statement for thesc idockats;

c. Alldhcumentswhichyouhavereceived-from.or.sent to and which.you intend to send or have knowledge that you will receive from cach of the persons, firms, corporations or. agencies as l set..forth-in your answers to b above; i l

l C a

- 4 ' . 'w'y p, _ , - , .p , .-

f i

d. The. names of_those persons within the Atomic. Encrgy Commission who prcsontly are participating or whom you. intend to participata in the preparation of the Detri]ed wat ir$nmental Statenient for thec dockets; ,

-1

e. Under'what circumstances, if any, excluding issues of nuc] car safety

- and radiological protection,-in connection _with your obligations under the National Environnental Policy Act and Revised Appendix D to Part 50, are you prepared'to take a position against the construction of the propobed Midland Units either absolutely or in favor of a pow'er plan @ fueled by other than nuclear energy. This subparagraph calls for a discussion of how you will discharge

, your.pesponsibilitics to analyze alternativos to the proposed licensing and attempts to deterinine whether the Atomic Energy Commission's promotional

-aspects will so outweigh its regulatory aspects so that all other thingh being equal.you will ncvor objec,t.to the licensing of a nuclear powerjplant; and

f. What steps yoi are taking or plan to

'take to assure that you will make an independent analysis of all of the issue

'Envir%requiredbytheNational onmental Policy Act and !!cvised Appen' dix D to Part'50 in connection

.with ,the preparation of Detailed i Environmental Statements for these

. do cke,ts .

C) As to AppEicant

( ,

No. 233. 8In connection with the requirements

'of- the Na;tional Environmental Policy Act and Revis'ed Appendix D to Part 50 of.the Commission's Regulations, state in detail

'the following:

l

,. l l

L: .-~- _4

i

. p ,-

N. -

a. Each standard and criteria that

.you have used or will une in-connection with the required risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses;

b. .The name of each person, firm, corporation or state or federal agency which you have'cnntacted or Will contact'in connection with l

! your submission of environmental l

information for these dockets;

c. All documents which you havo received from or sont to and which you intend to send or have knowledge that you will receive

( .

from each of the persons, firms, corporations or agencies as set forth',in your answers to b above; l d. The names of those persons who L

. presently are participating or whom you intend to participate ,

in the preparation of environmental

'information for these dockets.

l l

In support of this Motion,. Intervenors state as fol?ows:

l l A. As. indicated elsewhere in thess Motions and in:our accompanying letter,

' Interverors are not in a position;to l l

f submit specific in errogatories. directed.

i at environmental issues until at least a certaindocumentsyreproducedand examined and the Regulatory Staf f - has made available to'the phrties the1 benefit of ,

"its analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act;-

-J%.

I 4 A, f*-

'a-t B) Intervonors.have asked the interrogatories conte.ined within thin Motion in~ an effort,to satisfy the parameters of theregliredenvirhnmentalanalysissothat Intervonors and the Board can begin to understand the direction in which the Regulatory Staff and others are heading prior to the formulation.of the Detailed Environmental Statement;"

C) Without at least the basic information listed by the answers to these interrogatories, Intervenors will not be in a_ position to participate along with the Regulatory Staff and other parties in connection with the environmental ana]ysis; -

and  ;

D) If theso interrogatories are answered, Intervenors will-lus in a better position to participate with the Regulatory Staff-in its environmental analysoc,,,thereby possibly foreclosing delays in these proceedings as a result of. having to wai t for the Detailed Environmental Statement.

-- . ~s--. -

p. ,

q.

. Motion No. XII I

Intervenors, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations . of the Atomic . Energy Con: mission, movo 1.hc Boardto-recertifyitsquesthonNo. 1 originally certified . to the Appeal Board under date of August 18, 1971, upon the grounds that the Appeal Doard did not adequately answer tho' question in light of the facts of

- this case and the failure of an 'ade:uato answer will prejudico Intervenors not only in connection'with an analysis of- the iodine spray l removal system but- also in connection with an analysis'ef other~ systems and .in -

particular, the emergency. core cooling sys tem.

i!

In support of th s Mot i on, Intervonors refer the Board to the discussion under part III of.our letter of September 30,1971l accompanying these Motions.

I i

i I

e .

$ l

~77-1

p . <-

s.,

, e . e' e

.f Motion N,0. XIII Intervenors, pursuant to the Rules ~and

, Regulations of-the Atomic Energy Commission, and in light of the A-neal Board's Decision' in these dockets under date of September 21, 1971, move the Board for the entry of,an Order requiring a hear.ing upon the issue of whether Westinghouse's claim.of proprietary in connection with its iodine spray removal documents is, on all relevant factors available, justified. 'Intervenors specifically movethattheBoard-orderashfollows: .

A)' That the Westinghouse iodine spray removal documents be submitted to the

Intervenors for examination with permission t-to disclose them.to expert witnesses for the sole purpose, and bnder appropriate protective' orders,;of examining the question j i

of proprietary; I  !

B) ' That -the poard order the Regulatory l 1

' Staff and/or_ Westinghouse.to submit.to-the Board-and-parties, underl appropriate: protective order,s,La' detailed statement as to the .

i j

l

... . C, s..

' i juctification 'for he claim of proprietary and that the person or persons responsibin for the making of cuch statements be thercaf ter available for the purpose of cross 1 examination; l

C) That within.30 days after roccipt  ;

of the submissions ' con,templated by B above, -

Intervonors shall submit in writing objections I

to or reasons why the submission in favor of proprietaryisno$' justified; and  ;

T

' ~

D) That thercaf ter the ' Board ' set 'the  !

matter down for hearing and decision.

In ' support of this: Motion, Intervenors refer the Boardito the' discussion under part III of our letter of September 30, 1971 accompanydng these Motions.  :

i' l l

l Respecilfully submitte ,

CC22Q .

su bN i / ~

Ai14f 9( y for dagiiinw '6LTE Intervc nors, et al.

' September. 30, 1971- ,

i I

l

'~

.1

$1 '