ML19344A208
| ML19344A208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1972 |
| From: | Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A205 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008060554 | |
| Download: ML19344A208 (3) | |
Text
_
)
,w
- . t'-)
,4;f
-h
..ma :m2ut G
.r Q
raca. & uhl, fAC. fiO 32'l330 c
\\-
ll 'i 01972 a-
, (
0, 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
J
..s
' h.
cxt._ V, ATOMIC-ENERGY COMMISSION Q
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket-Nos. 50-329
)
50-330
. MIDLAND PLANT UNITS l' AND 2
)
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION-On April 15, 1972 Saginaw Valley, et al. Intervenors l
filed a verified' Motion for an adjournment of the hearing, coupled l
-with suggestions for certain prehearing procedures to be folicwed during the period of adjournment.
This motion was the subject of l
further oral argument on April 28, 1972.
See transcrip.c pp. 5254, l
l
. e t,. sea.; 5263-77; 5281-96; 5313.
The Board denied.the Motion, L
although'no' party (other than Saginaw) submitted any facts w$ich would support any assertion of prejudice.
Saginaw-Valley, et al. Intervenors hereby request the Board to certify.to the(Commission the denial of the Motion, calling'to the Commission's attention the verified letter filed Linisupport of-the. Motion'and the relevant portions of the prehearing conference :on' April 28, 1972.
.As additional support for this request, we call specific
- attention;to? the comments of Mr. fKartalia at page 5253 of thejerans-
.cript, where he said:
- .800.8(060 5 6 7
~
"I would like to say, if there is any possibility
~
of working out a reasonable compromise date whereby Mr. Cherry could remain fully active in both cases, i
that I would certainly-be in favor of exploring it.
I think he-is entitled to that consideration."
Finally,-we would call the Board's attention to the statement of Chairman Murphy at page 5276 of the transcript:
"The basic. trouble I have with that-position is that if the ECCS is postulated as not working, you can't license this reactor in any event.
So that from a radiological _ _s_tandgoint, as I understand it, if you make the assumption that ECCS won't work, you can't license it."
Thus, as indicated in other Motions filed today, the state of the
~
ECCS record demonstrates that there is no basis for a conclusion that ECCS will' work..Thus, if the Board after reviewing the proffered testimony, agrees with us, then such agreement serves as an additional 0
reason for delaying the hearing and hence adds to the novelty which forms the basis for the request-for certification.
Respectfully submitted, SAGINAW VALLEY, ET AL. INTERVENORS c%
l //40 f
/
MyronfM.-Cherry
~
/ TM By
- DATED: ~May 8,.1972.
t
L p-
- r m,
w l '.
s c
'CF5TIFICATION I certify: that.-copies of '.iic. foregoing: document l'
~..Were mailed, postage prepaid, on May 8, 1972 to. members of l~
the : Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, the Secretary of the.
Acomic Energy Commission and all counsel of record.
Myron M. Cherry v
L l-lc
~
1 I
a.,.
_4
'l~ T
'.b e
d>
's'i
-i 7'i '
C
,~e d
,