ML19347A596

Submits Comments to Applicant Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.Concurs,Subj to Certain Exceptions & Qualifications,W/Applicants Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law

ML19347A596
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/25/1972
From:	Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Goodman C, Hall D, Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007291027
Download: ML19347A596 (10)

Text

.

a; D'

et"+

' UNITED STATES

(( 1 5 l ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION L-I.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 T

September 25, 1972 Arthur W. Murphy,' Esq., Chairman Dr. Clark Goodman

. Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board Professor of Physics Columbia University School of Law University of Houston

" Box 38 3801 Cullen Boulevard -

' 435 West 116th Street Houston, Texas. 77004

~

New' York, New York 10027

' Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico

' P.'O. Box 1663' Los' Alamos, New Mexico 87544

.In the Matter of Consumers Power Company

. Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.(50-329' and 50-330 J

Gentlemen:

L On August 15, 19_72, the applicant in the captioned matter filed its p ropt sed

-findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of an initial decision.

.Upon reviewing their submission we have concluded that we can adeo.ately communicate our own position to the Board by concurring, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, in the applicant's proposed findings

~

of fact and conclusions of law.

i;

(..

- By way of qualification we wish to point out that we have not attempted to point'out each and every instance in which we cannot fully endorse the j

applicant's finding. In some instances we simply decided that our difference of opinion with the applicant was not significant enough to bring to the Board's ' attention.. In' other cases we have omitted mention of such items because we are' confident that the Board will not interpret our silence as 1

endorsement'of the applicant's language. There are, f e example, a few instances where in our judgment the applicant has.nnecessarily taken -

Lwhat appears to be an ad hominem approach in dealing with those associated ~

with the~intervenors.

q l

'<=

~

.a a

~

~~>~-.n~.

-r-

~

r---

- ~,

~ ~ ~ '

~.

Eg, _

?

3

~

~,

Q

~

v

, %)

'A

' 9 <

M.]

s

?-L2-1

~

i

y-

~

+

m LOurfspecific' exceptions.to th'eLapplicant's pioposed findings are as n

follows:

..n

~

w..,.. ; -.-..

3 1

F la jWe viould want to note in connection with proposed finding-36 2

that the staff has' testified that the proposed. crew size may not

' be ' ace'eptable. L(Safety Evaluation;."SE",;p. 68)J This is'an -

~

? item that we intend to take' up with the applicant prior to our'

. operating licenss - stage' review.,

p 12.,

To 'the extent that proposed finding.42 'may be interpreted as suggesting _that the' staff. approved the size of the low popu -

1ation. zone exclusively on the basis of radiation dose, we Jwould want to note our d:sagreement, since populatio_n consi-a derations were also involved in this determination. (SE, p. 8).

3.

In proposed finding'45,;we would want to note that the data in applicant's exhibit 13, being incomplete with respect to employee.

. population's, do not permit a definitive comparison of the Midland '

site with the Indian Point and Zion sites.

L 4.

In propo' sed finding 47,;weLthink it patently misicading to equate

~

" probable maximum flood" with " largest flood conceivable". ~

5. :

,1n connection with proposed finding 50 (sic), at p. 38, 'we would

~

want to note thL we have testified,that we will review the t applicant's calculation of th'e probable maximum flood during

' construction"of the plant to assure that the calculational techniques i

. have been properly emp1oyed..(SE, p.14).

'6.

In propos_ed finding-61,-we think it would be more accurate to

(

conclude lthat the Safety, Guide No;. 4' assumptions are "sufficiently-.

y conservative" than to conclude that they are "the most conservative p

credible". (Tr.13703-04) 7.

LIn. proposed' finding 86,.we would propose that.the sentence reading The staff concurred in this ' conclusion" be changed to "The staff 1 concurred'in this conclusion but required that' test data be supplied i

~

t L

.. (to 'confirnithe suitability of the diesel generators as an on-site emergency power source prior to th'e operating license review".

(

s 1(SE, p 843),

/,

.m

-."f r

D

+

3 P

4 g

-- s.r o ;

s

?~s

- e,

-1 I

e

• =

-E e-

$=--+97

+9 r

$r e-7 r

w y

e y

v 1

X L.;,

g.m

~

-.3 -

x-s "In connection with proposed finding 88,;we'would note that more 8.

detailed cable installation procedures and design criteria will be frequired. ;(SE, p. "45).-

~

19..

For proposed findings 128-130, we would propose the following

' substitute:

"The applicant is commuted to a comprehensive,

' documented quality assurance program for which it will have final responsibility. The application

' contains a description of the program, including a discussion of how the applicable requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 will be satisfied. The Board has reviewed this information and concluded that if the program is implemented in accordance

. with the representations in the application, the requirements of Appendix B willin fact be satisfied.

During the hearing, much additional information relating to the question of quality assurance was l'

introduced into the record: for example, the record includes manuals implementing the quality assurance,

program: Division of Compliance (now Directorate of Regulatory Operations) reports, noting, inter alia, some deficiences in the applicant's implementation of the program; an i documentation relating to what the Saginaw'Intervenor's allege was inade_quate quality n

- assurance during the construction of the applicant's Palisades Plant. The Board has considered this additionalinformation, but only for the limited purpose of determining whether any evidence has been adduced which would be inconsistent with findings favorable to

- the applicant on the ultimate issues in the proceeding.

The Board has found no such evidence in the' record.

The~ enforcement functi* n of the Commission's regu-o 1atory program has been. delegated to 'the Director of

- Regulation, not the Board, and the Board must assume i

'that the Direi-tor of Regulation,- through the Directorate of Regulatory Operations, will require adherence to the

. quality assurance program that is described in.the

~

application'."

'I

6 3

s

10..

In proposed finding 136, at p.125, we would propose a new

. penultimate sentence as follows: - "However, preparations

~ th'at are made for the protection of the public in' the low population zone should be ' suitable for expansion and mobilization of extra resources should a more serious faccident occur." ' (Tr. ~ 3334)

~ 11.

On page 167, ~we would propo e inserting "significantly" between "not" and " affect" i; the first line, and substituting "only a small" for "no measrrable" in the fourth line from the bottom of the page.. Similarly,*we would propose

~

substituting "only a small" for "no measurable" in paragraph g.

4 on page 261. -' (FES, p. V-16) 12.

We would propose striking the las't sentence of proposed finding'219.

. 13.

We_would propo,se an additional finding of fa~ct~to read as follows:

"The applicant is committed-to implement recommendations 7(a).. (b), (c),.(d), (e) and (g) set forth on pp. iii-iv of

~-

the staffs Final Environmental Statement. As a substitnte for the action called for in recommendation 7(f), the applicant has agreed to treat phosphates so that the total discharge including laundry waste and start up waste, based on the actual average, will not exceed 35 pounds per day exclusive 'of the pond reconcentration of existing phosphate levels in the river. The staff finds this substitute action' acceptable."

14.

In our view, th'e proposed legal conclusions on page 267 serve no purpose and should not be made.

Respectfully, a

t.y.//

${$ Cl u

~ David Kartalia' Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff I

- cc:

See page 5 g.

• • • Ff*

• ** T

• 4 Y

• * # * ' N'

~

d r, *

e 6

. - 9 f

f l.

~

~

~

',. $v X,

..g

}

1 i

c

. ;*,, w,

--i.

~ ~

w.

. S --

-~

L

<c, l cc:

(Robsrt Lowenstein,' Esq..

W

. Irving Like,;Esq : - r --

'~

Richard G

Smith,:Esq.

Harold P. Graves,~ Esqr

. William J.; Ginster, Esq.

~ '

(Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

p.

Milton R. Wessel, Esq.

James A. Kendall, Esq. -

.c EJames N. O'Co'nnor,jEsq.

' John Ki. Restrick, Esq.

' David Comey, Esq.

Mrs.< Mary Sinclair '

. Honorable Vern Miller

~ Atomic Safety and Licensing-Board-

~ Panel'.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal.

Board.

~

Mr. Frank Kara's '

Honorable William H. Ward.

9, J

a O

I h

. i.

~ $.

A t

.: 4 N

.m, L

f~ b 1:

s" q_.'l r

• is.y< ;f.m. y v.~d,. d_'. i, - g,, Q,,m.

.,3,p y. -- -

~~,oe.,

y,..

..n~.*

-=.- ~ ~~ ~ ~ -*-'

4

,