ML20037A878
| ML20037A878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1971 |
| From: | Roisman A BERLIN, ROISMAN, KESSLER & CASHDAN |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007170781 | |
| Download: ML20037A878 (5) | |
Text
.- - _ -, - -. _ _ - _ _ _ - _.
I i
nxses.:s, Wies.m am> Kvm i<
isso N sTarrv NonTHwest
)
wasmNC10P4, O C.20036 F DW A RP1 teF RLIN A ara CODF 207
.nre.nur z nousuan
, enour semu GL A tivt e= F S SLF ft i
May 17, 1971 o.v.n n ca.nO.n 1
1 3
2 THIS DOCUMENT 00WTAINS Arthur '
"urnhr, Esc., Ch airma'1
' ~
ntor.ic safetf nna Licensing eoard P00R QUAUTY PAGES Columbia Univer"i t**
School of Law For. 3 8 4 3 5 'Vca t 116th "trcot New York. tice York 10027 re:
Consunars Power Company, d
' tic?. land, !!i c'11gan, UniM l
1 and 2, Dochet I!cs.60-2'2h j
and 53-330 1
i i
Dear fir.
Ch.' ir nnn :
rnclosed herewith is the offer of proof by Intervenor, i
Environmental Dcfonne Fund, with respect to the validity of 10 CFR Dart 50, ?.ppend.i r D.
1
.\\lthough EDF has not taken a position w2.th respect to the merits of the safety issues in this proceeding, it does fecl conpolled to speak out on the conduct of the proceed-ing as related to those issues.
The attitude of the applicant, i
Dow Choaical, the ?taff and the Poard vith respect to prc-hearing discovery and the conduct of the herrir.gs arc indicative of what EDF will encounter if and when it ir al'.cwed, -tith respect to environmental issues, to nursue riscovery and to participate in the hear.inen.
The AEC has achncvler ged that contested hearinos rcJuire additional nrocedural guidelines and has pro-posed such guidelines.
foe 36 Fed. Pcg. 8379 D'ay 5, 1971).
Ne have substanti.11 oroblers vi th thosc propcsed guideli.ncs but iot 'aith one objective stated bf the Comrission:
The Commission recognizes that contested f acilit" liccnsing proceedincts F.'ould be conducted wita the objectire of de'relo,oing an ade uate record for the resolution of the ;,att.erc in controvern".
In our view that objective is a pre-condition to any action by the atomic Safety and T.icensinr: Board with rbspect to an appli-i cation for a c7nstruction rernit or an operatinc licen.e.
6 8007170 7 81 i
n F,
4***#
, ~.. -, _.
n
~
. sr t: a." '.. f un ' ",
l'.i c;.
"r 27, 1971 i' ace 2 In the cresent state of this proceedinc no adecuate record has been de r: lope 6.
Interrogatories submitted h.
the Saginau Inter"onors havo not been specifically objected to cr ans tered h.
the Staff.
objections to the co-'pleteness of the applicant's "en"en90s to interrocatorice have not cecn ruled u;on.
1-terrogatorios :.ubnitted to.the Dow Chemical Comrany have not been answered and it has been suggested that Sacinaw It'orvcnors pro"e the rather clear relevance of thnee interrq ato-res, proof of which ocuires data which carnot he practi cal!
dcterrined' without annters to at least some of the in ce-rc7? torie".
These are only e few of the matters chich 7, unresclved at this tire.
Moreover, we cannot share the view of scre parties to this oroceedina which recklessly use the terms " unreasonable delay" as thonah the mrre utterance of the.orms provides an answer to any 'nd all recuests for discovery.
The suggestion that nublic interect intervonors shculd becone f amiliar with the "idlands ruc] ear ulant in - few r.onths w."n the Staff and applicant have had several years of fami]iarity with nuclear plants in general and this plant in particular is absurd.
The development of that familiarity, the formulation of inter-rogatories and requests for documents, the analysis of responses tc those re'yaests and the development nf a case for hearings is a lenothy process.
It is axioratic that to long as the AEC persists in alleecim the public to intcrvene in prcceedings only after the annlicant and *5e ?taf f hcve corp]eted their review and a-o in '7ct rea{" to issuc a cenetruction per.it and b27in conrt action that de]ay wil] occur.
?,u t it is uncon-scionable for resme W ele arties who :ncy Phc corplOxities of these matter, to clair that such a de]ay is unreasone,le.
The coniuct of thnee proceedings vov25 be materially improved if the Laard ruled that substantive requests should be responded to su.'istantirely and not with procedural evasions.
The Roard should alne deterrine that hearincs not be begun until all disence*- 2.nd objections related to fiscover-; have been c7nol::ted.
Je also sish to advise the Doard t'm t in an effort to rush our prenarction of the attached docunants we vere unable to prm ide counsel the cacinar In5c rvenerr wit.h a drr.Ct of them documenu.
- !o "ve r, the Saoinaw Intoivenors and EDF t
me h
we ArQur
- 1 u r ' i a y
.1
, t ' ?.1 raco j f
have corked tec"ther clos 21; on all environ ental issues and intend in conf 1..2 to Ao so.
Thtls we request that the Cacinaw In te rveno rs b^ c 1'.c','er' rive days fron today to file a document sip:ertiny or se e.W n, modifications in this offor o.5 proof.
T.DF."e:11 that uch of the substanti'.*a inn::t on environ: ental mattern :n thic.
as,2 hr come and will conc # rom t'io Sacina" I n t e rve r.r. r s.
Je M ust th t the Board ' ill al:o ; them a reason-l able tire to r'.'
the. T.ioport to our ei' orts with respect to t.hc at tachcv r'ect:non t :;.
EDF has o c -'1ont on the 3uccostions by several parties recardiner ans r nri-hearing confereac<.
3 runs raised by ED5s of ?c r n ' rv car he dealt with h.' 'tritten responses and no oral rr Jea '. 7 t i o - to the Board '
re? tic s ted b-;
~.3 F.
EDF'e
.ralys.n o# t!'e D: a f t Environrcntal Statement ihculd be comr ~ ct d rhortiv and will be subritted to the
'to a rd anci tha
. r t i e.m.
7.r ;.licant vill be af forded an e,cportunity to con n t on
,~ c" comI'onts to the Crc't.
The applicant obsc rcs. nat 1 n ':afe cr inot co'aplet* tne Detailed Statement i
until at 'ecst t* r ' eci:s af t or it hr.3 received the applicant's comrants.
("rt : r sc
^rder submitted "ay
.1, l';71, by Applicant. )
The corn'nts I c Dr-sh :1 ~ be atrailable nc '.tcr than the date on lich Apnli er-. co :letes its rre-'on ses tc '^.c co"ren t s Of Federal agaccf S i n co re.i 'f, 7,n th00, Z.
!>C.i c:"3 1 Colln s 91 #or t'M ~ ti rcnpf.n tal D r ",- m,-
h-A cci b } l on "o -
I, i r. '-
4
1 I.
7 j
BEFORE TIIE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
);
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION J
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS PONEP COMPAN?
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 I
Construction Permit Applications,
)
50-330 Midland, Michigan Nuclear
)
j Reactors, Units Nos. 1 and 2
)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a
j I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing letter j
to Arthur W.
Murphy, Esq., Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated May 17, 1971 have been served on the l
following by deposit in the United States mail, on the 17th l
day of May, 1971:
4-i Dr. David B.
Hall Richard G. Smith, Esq.
)
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Smith and Brooker, P.C.
P.O.
Box 1663 703 Washington Avenue
}
Los Alamos, New Me:cico 87544 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Dr. Clark Goodman Harold P.
Graves, Esq.
Professor of Physics Vice President and General 1
University of !!ouston Counsel 3801 Cullen Boulevard Consumers Power Company 4
Houston, Texas 77004 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Lowenstein and Newman William J. Ginster, Esq.-
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 4 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 Merrill Building Saginaw, Michigan 48602 j
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
3 111 West Monroe Street James A.
Kendall, Esq.
l Chicago, Illinois 60603 135 N. Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Milton R. Wessel, Esc.
i Kay, Scholer, Pierman, i
Hays and Handler 425 Park Avenue j
a
% Mr. Stanley T.
Robinson, Jr.
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
David E.
Kartalia, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission Nashington, D.C.
20545 i.'
9/f!i.a
/
- * %A ~. t;..v
'~ AnthonyjZ. Roisman Counsellfor/the Envirc? mental D6 fens'ep und, F
Inc.
s May 18, 1971
.