ML20126E411
| ML20126E411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1973 |
| From: | Cunningham G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Scinto J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126E404 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101270279 | |
| Download: ML20126E411 (4) | |
Text
.4
/
d s
3--
j April 10, 1973
- a.
Note to Mr. Scinto j
e I have reviewed the proposed letter to Dr. Reizen, and have great dif-s ficulty with it, because of the close relationship to the issues raised in the litigation. I agree with you that a much briefer letter indicating that there will be an opportunity for a hearing, and enclosing a copy of the notice to that effect which was published .n the Federal Register today, would be a more appropriate response.
More specifically, I question the accuracy of the first paragraph of the 3 ~-
letter, if it is meant to imply that fuel rods containing recycled h,,;
plutonium were not used prior to Amendment No. 4.
They have been in use since Amendment No. 3 in 1969, as I understand it.
) M ';.y t The second paragraph is acceptau e, as far as it goes. _I_would add.to it_.
language such as the following, # s you are no doubt aware,_ these particular A
issues are now the subject matter of litigation in the case of West Michigan Environmental Action Council v. AEC, et al., Docket No. G 58-7', in the U. S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
In view of this liti-gation, it would be inappropriate for us to discuss these allegations in l'
detail at this time. For your information, however, we are enclosing a
>^
copy of the December 6, 1972, memorandum of James J. Shea which documents Q:-
the finding of no #significant hazard consideration 1different from those previously evaluated h'",
m._
~- -
.s The remainder of page 1, and the first paragraph of page 2, then become redundant. The next paragraph on page 2 goes to an issue (ECCS) not even raised in the incoming letter and should be omitted, in my opinion.
Similarly, I would omit the remainder of page ? md all of page 3, except for the last paragraph, because it appears to provide a great deal n than is requested in the incoming letter. In view of the litigation and j
the impending hearing I think this is most unwise, particularly as we have b not yet formulated our answer to the complaint in the lawsuit.
I would leave in the last paragraph on page 3, and_ rewrite the remainder _of.
the. letter to indicate the following thoughts.; The statut6if framework,( A A A
~
j j / provides for amendment of licerses, rather than issuance of new licenses, P
f' when changes in operation are proposed. That course was fg lowed with the issuance of Amendment No. 4, to Facility Operating License DPR'T.
Because
(
l g / c/ 2 7027"
. iA h-/.,
u.
o... thC[/f /Q'yy \\
,r of the public interest which has been shown concerning this amendm,ent, the Commission has offered an opportunity for hearir.g on the amendtnent, and has (j
designated an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to receive and rule on g
l requests for such a hearing and/or petitio9s for intervention in such a j
hearing. A copy of that notice, published 3G(38 F.R.~ _ 9104);is enclosed for your information and guidance, should you desire to participate in the further proceedings.
In sho[t',"'the-letter should' be mor[in the manner of those letters sent to persons who inquire about contested regulatory proceedings, explaining the nature of the proceeding and the procedural alternatives open to them should they dissire to participate.
A A
~
4]
Guy H. Cu ningham, III
l 1
~
)
i
- r. m,.
?L, 1
CEWO ty> ;n I
9;'; q;
+we
. /u yW,. J r;-
MICHIGhN DEPA. 6..dNT OF PUBLIC H$ALTH b Lansing 48914
.i antnN nitt:P1 RE0"I51t0 Mr. Ancelo Giambusso
('7CCIOTiDi.ml oenuty oirector for acactor ero.iects
=-
~
[
3. G id s. !, r. L r.*
8 U. S. Atomic Eneroy Commission Washinnton, D.C.
20545
~ - -
N c>.
/ J n 'D t
m__
e g
i ',. ;.
' p
.h j
+=-trc' Olii@.-
- a%i-.'
p " ::;
k 4.N.,o E
-