ML19344A274
| ML19344A274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1971 |
| From: | Ginster W, Like I GINSTER, W.J., MAPLETON INTERVENORS, REILLY & LIKE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008070654 | |
| Download: ML19344A274 (5) | |
Text
y,...
-4 g
A 00CXET NUNSEE 2300. & UIR. IAC.U327,MO J
IINITED STATES OF AMERICA I i ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION q
^.1<i, In the Matter of
)
Do e os.
CONSIMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
j,,.g' a:
%,:,~,)
\\
'-4/
d "l'
3
,Q 1 6
MOTION TO DISMISS N-MAPLETON INTERVENORS, by their attorneys, William J.
Ginster, Esq. and Irving I.ike, Esq., move th's Board, pur-suant to 42 U.S.C.A. Sections 2131, 2014(cc), 2236 and 2282 for an order dismissing the application on the follow-i ing grounds:
1.
The applicant has unlawfully caused the procurement, i
partial manufacture, production and fabrication of the re-actor pressure vessel (which is a major component part of the proposed Midland atomic plant, a " utilization f acility" within the definition of 42 U.S.C.A.,
Section 2014(cc),
without first having obtained a construction permit from A the Commission, as required for all utilization facilities by 42 U.S.C.A., Section 2131 t
8 -StBIlftt Ca MIR AUG111971 * @D
",."h""'A*
8008070 ( 7 y
r I
L I
v
- 2.,
2.
,42 U;.S.C.A., Section 2236 prtvides in DM*t,that any licenso a,ay be revoked if conditions revealed by the application or statement of fact or any report, record or inspection would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for. failure to construct or operate a facility in accordar e with the terms' of the construction permit or the technical specifi-cations in the application, or for violition of or failure to observe any of the terms and orovisiens of Chapter 23
' of the Atomic Enercy Act.
(Underlining added) 3.
It follows that if a license may be revoked because of a violation of the Atomic Energy Act, then a fortiori an application may be dismicsed if conditions revealed by j
1 such application show that there has been a violation of l
1 the Act.
J During the hearing, on July 16, 1971, applicant testi-fied that it had ente,J into a contract to procure the reactor pressure vessel and that the vessel had already been partially man'2factured and f abricated. Since such manufactufe and fabrication has taken place without the issuance of a permit permitting same, the record of this case conclusively establishes a violation of 42 U.S.C.A.,
1 Section 2131.
/
\\
f
r w--,
p-
-l u
s
^
^
3.
i 5.
The seriousness with which the Commission views viol-ations of the Act is evidenced not only by the provisions of Sectici 2236 calling for the revocation of licenses in I
tl.a event of violation, but also by 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4
2272 providing for criminal penalties, and Section 2282 prescribing civil penalties for violations of licensing requirements.
6.
Mapleton Interver4 ors have read the motion of Saginaw Intervenors for an order rescinding the authority of the I
applicant to do any further construction. We agree Chat I
the grounds det forth in the S,aginaw Intervenors' motion warrant the relief sought by the Saginaw Intervenors.
7.
We go a step further, however, in demanding dismissal, because we believe that the illegal fabrication of the re-actor pressure vessel has not only put undue pressure upon this Board to grant a permit, but has in fact disabled the Board from rendering decisions upon the fabrication pro-cess itself.
8.
For example, j f the applicant had been required to obtain a donstruction permit before commencement of fabri-cation of the reactor pressure vessel, the Board could have imposed c snditions in the permit with respect to the manner in whi-t such fabrication was to be performed, the nature and frequency of inspections to be required at each step of p
O
.~
.y p-t l
l A
-4, fabrication, quality assurance and quality control require-mentsasjothepartsbeingfabricated,andqualifications of the employees engaged in the fabrication and inspections.
I The Board could also have imposed as a condition of the permit a requhement that AEC personnel inspect and audit the fabrication at periodic intervals, and that specific reports and analyses be rendered. In short, the Board would have had the power to control the entire process of fabrication from inception to completion. To the extent that substantial fabrication has already taken place, the Board has lost this power.
9.
In short, the Board is asked to evaluate fabrication after the fact, whereas the Board should have had the power to evaluate fabrication before and after the fact.
10.
The rationale of 42 U.S.C.A., Section 2131 is to give t*te licensing board the power to regulate the manufacture and production of any component of a utilization facility.
If the applicant is allowed to proceed with the fabri-cation of a major atomic plant component, such as the re-actor pressure vessel, without the Board having the power to impose conditions if it deems necessary in the permit, with rt.. W,t to the fabrication itself, then the Board
)
is prevented from exercising its power to regulate the manufacture of the facility. To argue that an applicant may fabricate the reactor pressure vessel in advance of
y 7
r R
^
S.
I receiving,*a construction permit to do so is tantamount to asking the licensing board to grant a construction permit -
to build something that has already been built.
11.
It must be emphasized that the issue here is not only whether the applicant is willing to proceed with a sub-stantial investment in fabrication at the risk of not' getting a construction permit. The argument may be ad-vanced that af ter all it is the applicant's money and if the applicant chooses to risk its capital, no intervenor may complain. However, it is not simply the applicant's risk. It is 'also the public's iak in the sense that f
applicant's losses in investme ts may prompt it to apply to the ratemaking' authorities for relief.
12.
But even the financial risk of the public is not the over-riding consideration. What is crucial is that illegal fabrication hopelessly compromises the Board's power to contribute safety related input into the fabrication pro-cess through the medium of incorporating conditions in the construction permit.
Dated: Au at 9, 1971 Respectfully submitted WII.LIAM J. GINSTER, ESQ.
IRVING
, ESQ.
by:
IpngL1 Attorneys for Mapleton Intervenors
,