ML19331A866

Motion for Extension Until 730212 to File Exceptions to ASLB Initial Decision,Authorizing CP Issuance.Certificate & Authentication Encl

ML19331A866
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/29/1972
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8007230899
Download: ML19331A866 (9)

Text

.

c. t ..-

v3,y w ((w' //.3 -

/ r ,- . . . ,

. c a w, .a -

/cy acco ro y ,.

o.

i.; wn. .,

.p -

4 :

,. \

J,,o.l I1q73 > o

~

. , . ;'ly THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 3

y, . " ,\ , g

' /.d / g r['i@j ten T;;n stat;- m m a. p r c..

A l' Ofil C ! i!!! ' ' *" 1 ! ' " '

POOR QUAUTY PAGES

, .! \/

01:i Oh!: Ti!M ATOM E C fi AFET;" A:;;'. i,; e . I' i ;

'. 'ne " > ". *; c r c ) f

' ~-

" c e: * -

c' .t .? I'CdE n COMP.'J:Y ) 5 i-

)

;uil a

al P lant , Units 2 and 2) )

W) TIC:I OF St. git' E 'J n t L'"' T~" '" ' '

et aL., "O ? N1 C.~;Ti " IC'1 n T ' 'T . .

r :

WITIII;i WHICli TO F I L' . C X C . ,

IN ITI AL DECISIO:; AUTl!OF.I". I:.*; 1 JSt. . :&

OF A CONSTRUCTIO:i PEi0 LIT R l'!L sui 30ECT FAC'ILITIE3 * -

';aginaw Valley et al., Intervonorn, ( he re in,i T' -

~_-

1. f e r red to a.3 the "Intervonors") hereby move the Ater.:c fiafety and Licensing Appeal Board for the entry of an Order p rnittinc said Intervonors to filo exceptions to the Initial Decision rendered by the Atomic Safety and Licensinct Board undor date of December 14, 1972 f rom its present <lue dat e of

. r m u . i r .' 8, 1973 up to and including Monday, February I ? , l 'El i .

' h i - trounds for this motion are as follows:

1. Under date of December 14, 1972 the Licensino Board issued an Initial Decision authorizing ircuanc<< of a constiuction permit for the Flidland facility. Coune ! * -

Denignation of Saginau Valley, et al., Int o rvenors incim H" following Intervenors: Saginaw Vailey i;ucicar Stud, ;rnu: ,

Citizens Committec for Environmental Protection ot :ti ,% : : m ,

!;ierra Club, United Automobile Ucrkers at Am._ r i c a , o Environmental Action Council, and University o f .'l i c a i .; t i Unvi ronraental Law Society.

30o72sePif _

t. h . - I n t rv. nor:s received a ecpy of-tho Initi.1 1,,eisi<n ;.a t L o .. l . c. ..! I u rer s ,n , Is. m b e r 18, 19 7 '! . Accor4 : 3. i l , :n b r -

Conni : m i on ' 1 Ritles of Practico, e:coptior

• u ,, ! ,

li ci::icn vi:3 have to be filed on or :+ fore c u. ,

1971.(t:he ' 20 th day being a Sunday , January 7, 1973);

2. The Initial Decision is some 64 pagen Ic ig .n invclven complicated issues ranging in scope and impo r t. an ce i ce mi procedural issues dealing with the scope of cross-cr mina-fion to the propricti of the Licensing Board's scheduli.nq hearings in such a manner so as to assure that certain par *ici- _

pants could not be represented by counsel and substantive mattern from the adequacy and scope of the NEPI statements to the rcle of Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in environw:J .

hearings. As will be demonstrated by exceptions to be filet r in -

thin casc major and primary issues of Atomic Energy Rcquiatio:in are involved in the resolution of this appeal:

3. The Intervonors represent many national org.inizationn and include a corps of citi:*.cnu local to the proposed Midland site who have donated their time and money in pursuit of issues of prolonged public concern. Thus, the Intervenors_here have not only pursued an intervention in .he Midland docket but have also participated in the Emergenc-Core Cooling System hearings and intend to participate in the upcoming fuel cycle hearings. As such, the Intervencrn crint i nue t o perform a nervice by reprencnt i:." u nu n +. . of t h. public, in Atomic Encrgy Comminsion proc odinar "ut o t h e r*./ i n e represented;

4. Substantial portions of the Icgal wrvice-which-have been rendered and which will be re:.dcr u! ar o of the Intervenors have been donated completely or on a tr . u -

stantially reduced basis. This has been necennary in ordor t.

ausure that the Intervonors and the interests thich thc; reprencnt have competent legal representation:

5. Counsel for the Intervenora is also couaso for the Intervenors in the Licensing Board proceedings i nvEl ..

i n l'o int Beach Unit #2 (Docket 50-301) and the-Intervenora i. r

~

the Cmergency Core Cooling System hearings (Docket RT- 3 0 - 1 ) .

Hoth of those pro'ccedings have bcon of late very active ant) '_ , -"'

have requi red filings necessary to be made during the latter part of December, 1972. Indeed, this Appeal Board has scheduled oral argument in connection with Docket 50-301 in Washington, D. C. on Wednesday, January 3, 1973. The renponsibilitics in connection with the Emergency Core Cooling System hearings require that comments on draft environment _Ti statements be filed on or before January 22, 1973 and that.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be filed toward the latter part of January or the first week in February, 1973.

Counsel for the Intervenors is actively involved in the preparation of those papers (as he is in the scheduled oral 3-

7rgim<nt on' January 3,..

1973);

G. While a period of 20 dayn is n rert!; ;y

• ua W ptionn to an Initia 1 Decini/r .-' <

fc.r.Ii1in<i

.l'-,,

. I l.. il t h.. ? h <! syr, cannot L,  :. f i r:s r 1. < -

unt!< r e. rta i n ci rcumn tnnces exception.. -,n and hm .

filed %rlier than a permitted time period (fer u: ,

Intervenorn in Point Beach Unit #2 fi. led their excq . . ;

an Initial Decision of the Licensing Board dated June 12, 1972 almoct one wech in advance of the 20 day perio-1 because in junetivc measures were involved) and later than nc a1 :- ,

exceptions to ^

other canen (nuch as the delaying of/recent dncisior n in l'e. i ' +

ikach Uni t 2; see c.g. ALAB 86 and 87) because the : ; r .:'.= n F - -

i n,b en tod tha t nuch a course of procedure i s warran to.1: _

7. Because of the press of business (pa r t icu l a r l y ,

although not exclusively Atomic Energy Commission business) counnel for the Intervonors was not i'n a position to fully anal y::c the Licensing Board's decision in preparation for

<lin. nnni.ons wi th his clients concerning possib]c appeals un til the beginning of the week of December 26, 1972. In addition, the Christmas Ilolidays prevented a more prompt communication betwe<:n and among the Intervonors and their counsel in connec-tion with the upcoming appeal, communications which by ein fini t ion have to proceric the filing of any exceptionn;

8. The extension of timo requested horcin is reasonabic under all of the circumstances, par ticula rl y

. c. .nn i.te s i nq t h c- f act. that t.wo major holid.t ure bnIn <<o-

.l.o i n l lic proncril><td 20 day period. Thun, for all pr.

pne i. c en it heu. heen impossible to do any JoH; (or o.

necritarial services) on the weckends of Decemner ';? , 'c and December 29, 1972 and Christmas and New Years day .

9. The Intervonors attempted to communi. cat- - +

counsel for major parties in the case to solicit their ar -

m nt. to thi: motion. The Regulatory Staff did not app _vr have any objection but preferred to'take a position afte-this document has been filed . counsel for Dow Chemica' "- gy v.

e,n vacation and could not be reached; counsel for Appli- .

~

cant. refused almost without consideration, any granting of an extension;

10. The intervonors fully believe that the~issui;- -

in this caso require thorough analysis and professional briefing. Without the time requested by thin motion, the Int. rvonors will not be in a position to fully explore for t.he benefit of the Appeal Board all of the important innuou in Ihin cano. This wi11 have a consequent cf fcet obvioun1 i on t.he Appeal Board's decision-making and the responnes of the

< -ot her partics. Thus, the additional time will assure that l

j exceptions filed by the Intervenors are specific, di rect anil nuccinct, while such an objective would not he possible unA r t.he prencut time limitations; r

]]. There will be no prejudice to any part y an

.: i-- :u l l si!- t hi <t rant i ng o f t.hi s inot i nn wh i l < oin ou s !"

t in . di n i .i l ,o f t h ' u motion wi l l seve r ly. p ri' i nd i e - th.

L In!s r " e :o r: . Thore wi11 be no prejudice to ' h .' .

,; i - -

t. if f ininmuch as the construction per!'.tt h .'

la w i: .!

t!n- ::..gul at.ory Staf f has no ' further duties in connect a t h .i : caso un:i1 exceptions arc filed. Any additicnni t Itling exceptions, if such timo results in a more succine

,:.i.' ..nt c f issue:', can only bonafit - the acqulatory Staff in ennnection with its ronponso. Dow Chemi. cal Compan. av 1- m A: .; 1 i c:in t can in no way'be prejudiced by the grant;n:

t-hi: wilion. Firnt of all, the construction permit han

~

! re v i ,- bei n is::ued and no stay has been respiedt.cd. Acccr...:1, i hi short. cxtension requested by the Intervenorn does not tut t -

f e r- ei th any rights which Applicant may- choose to exorcine - -

an a result of. receiving the construction permit. Indeed, in.a conversation on December 28, 1972, Mr. !!arold Reis, counnol for Applicant, informed counsel for the Intervonore that notuithstanding the issuance of construction permitn-for the Midland Units, Applicant has no present intention to procned with any site or site related activity in connection with construction at least until April, 1973 and at that t; a

only presently contemplates ' doing some "unmothballing cf

equipment," some miscellaneous grading and the preparation of 4

nne - coment formn. The granting of thi.c extr nnion thun vill not unduly int erfere with the decision of t.he Applicant in 6-

c. .n n. e t i < n with t her:<' pe rm i t.: coincident w ~ t b .tny I u t o r <-

el. c i:. i ein:. which it might winh to mahr nub:p juent t:< . A ! ri'.

l *J 71. Accordingly, unlike a situation in in 0:m r s ' i r-1 i e.:nc" h 'aring where a ntay har, been gran od (or im in u en t.o re 1) .u:d there is urgency to have matters recolvtI * '

ther" in no such urgency in connection with thi.n case. t .,

mat.Le r i s not at the operating stage and the short extens e.

r, que :':vd her" is microscopic compared with the time which ran: .

be involved in building the Midland Units if ultimately t%.

insuance of construction permits is sustained. On the o te:o, : a .

the chart time period involved here in crucially important to an ,

a loe nia t." repre :entation of the interent ~of th6~ Int ervenor/:

~ -

12. In terms of the complexity of the issucs in thi.n proceeding w6 would note that the Licensing Board took -

almost one day short of six months from the conclusion of the ,

evidentiary hearings to issue its initial decision. Surely, if the Li. censing Board doomed the matter (apparently) sufficiently complex to take such a long period of deliberation, the g ra n t i o q of the short extension here only reaffirms the complexity of the case and the ne assity for sufficient time to do an adequate job in connection with the filing of exceptions: and

a h

$+f)$>%% , ee ev <e 1,.

TEST TARGET (MT-3) i$<<

1.0

- - Jl9 E lB E13li-M 1l-=2.2 7 gg l,l 53# bN l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6

• 6" >

1. 4 44 Af>///)/

3,,,

1. N+Q ,9,

= r- ,_Li

A //4 N+f+, /////qf<

() , e. ev <e _

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

'+

1.0 'dBM DM sl@ EE I.l ['2 llM l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6

e

4  %'

'4

+b

• ?hf 3,,, /

h' -

- tbQp.

9,

'(O

13. A review of tho= Initial r;" r- r o: . :vl i ba t e n t hat i t. app l i.c:: an erroneous interpretation of m PA i'i l t!n: C.i l ve r t Cliffs doctrine in t e rp re t i ne - -

J. . " ..'.:

u .:irte reference ' to the prac'.ican of tn Mw ...: -

C'G!iri b S i on . Indeel ther0 is Some question a;. Lo 3" -

• he .~en t: re Board was infused with a bi as w:.: :a r -der G

initia! Decinten a nullity. Intervonors receivua on December 23, 1972 a reprint of an article in the Columb:.a Law Pcview (volume 72, No. 6, page 9G3, October, 3G72) written by Ar'.hur W.

Murphy, Chairman of the Licensing Board, and entitled "The National Environmental Policy Act and the Licensing Process: Environmentalist Magna Carta or Agenc" Coup De Grace?" which supports the suspicion of bias.-~ ~

.4 part icularly, page 981 of that article where Chairman .

Murphy in discussing the Midland caso prior to his Initial Deci sion stated:

"In the circumstances [i.e. the Midland ca:iel there is a strong temptation to approve the contested site and fudge the question of al turnat ive .. "

Thi article indicates that it was originally written in early 1972 thus indicating a pre-judgment prior to the hearing n: tho Ni:PA issues. This is an additional reason why adequate t i:tc should be given to brief the serious and major issues of Lau and policy which will be the subject of Interveners ' e>:a : . -

_ g_

WilPREPORE, Saginaw Valley et al, Jnt c ewnne: ,

n 4

t he i+ pea l Board for the entry oC an nr.!er p. r: itti:

naid Intervenoru to file E.s:ceptions to the Li *

~ t ini1ii1.D .iui.on duted December 14, 1972 frua the.pr(ct n t-due date of January 8, 1973 up to and including res.ruary !,

1973.

Pospectfally submitt<cd,

]l f -t l

Attorney for Said Inte /*m-M c ron .'4. Cherry, Esq. . -

I l ', Soulh La Salle Street.- 33rd Floor Cin i caqu , I1Linois C0603 -

(312) 64l-6000 1 -

CHitTI PICATION AND AIJTill:NTI CATION I

certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was mailed postage prepaid and properly addrucsed on Priday, December 29, 1973 to members of the Atomic Safety and 1,icensing Appeal Board, all counsel of record and the Secret:ary of th Atomic Energy Commission. I also certify that t- h e f. ic t-n e t. E o r t.h in said Motion a"e true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

i

<  %. f j. '

! .3 .nl.

, ; d . ' ,'

j

'c 1 Myron M. Cnerry '

I

_9_

~ __ _ .,, -,