ML19331A831
| ML19331A831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1971 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A829 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230864 | |
| Download: ML19331A831 (9) | |
Text
_
DOCKET NUMEER G-3CIL &ilIE, E&C. 5-327360 ETfED STidS OF AMERICA ATOMIC EERGY CCEESSIO:s In the Matter of
)
)
CONSGERS IGTER CC.'GMf
)
Ibeket :;cs 50-329
)
50-330 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 )
- 1 I?f cc IErra ma 3
a.
JUll 31971 m g
c = e mm,,
-4 hm hxwo hm Rulinrs on Interrocatories Add essed to the AEC Staff 8
I w
Intervenors have served a set of 336 interrogatories direct-ed to the Atenic Energy Co._ ission (AIC) and 'he Advise:/ CO-4t-tee on Reactor Safeguards (ICES).
The AT. staff, while conceding that it veuld be SM119.c to discuss a reasonable set of interroga-tories," has gener,y objected en tha ground that the interrega-tories are " unreasonable and reflect a =iscenception as to the role of the s**##"
4-a proceedicg such as this. The basis of the staff position is the clai= that to answer these interrogatories vould require months of work and ir.uld disrupt the operation of the staff not only in this proceeding but in al' other cases. The staff has also nade specific objection to certain interrogatories.
Applicant has supported the staff positien and has also filed a These are in cdcition to interrogatories served on the applicant
+
and other parties.
8807 so &
g
s detailed set of cbjections. The staff, applicant and intervenors have filed extensive memoranda in support of their position. The Board has entered two interim orders directing that some of the interrogatories be answered and has reserved judgment on the rest.
The key to the problem posed by the interrogatories is that they are designed, in the main, not to elicit the underlying facts but to probe the staff's reason for their conclusion that the proposed reactor qualifies for a construction permit. The vice of the interrogatories is epitomi=ed by No. 292 which would require the staff to " describe each fact, calculation and assump-tion" on the basis of which it concludes that fourteen separate systems "will be adequate to perform their intended functions."-
The interrogatory then goes on to require that the AEC make a de-tailed comparison of this to previously licensed reactors.
In sum, what the intervenors seek in these interrogatories amounts to a written rationalization by the staff of each decision on safety which has been made in this and many other proceedings. To properly answer these interrogatories would, the Board is satisfied, require the staff to reexamine, rethink, and reconstruct at least two years of discussion, conferences, etc. on many diverse aspects of these complicated systems. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that complete answers to these interrogatories would require the staff to prepare a justification, intelligible to laymen, of
~
.~
1 3
the whole history of the development of pressurized water reac-tors, without, in the Board's view making a significant contri-bution to safety.
Intofar as the interrogatories seek to probe the staff's decision process, Applicant has argued vigorously that they are objectionable under the so-called bbrgan doctrine, as enunciated in United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941), we believe that the reliance on the Morgan doctrine is misplaced. The con-clusions of the staff here are not " agency decision" in the same sense as in the Morgan case. Nevertheless the lbrgan and other cases are relevant as a recognition of the practical diff:ulties for administration posed by examinations into the underl;.tng reasons for staff decisions. These difficulties are multillied where. a multitude of complex technical questions are invols ;d.
And the problems ale exacerbated here by the fc.ct that intervenors seem to be challenging not just this construction permit but the whole atomic energy program.
We conclude that whatever the permission to serve interroga-tories contained in the regulations may mean, it cannot be construed to require that the staff prepare the kind of analysis that these interrogatories would impose.
On the other hand, the Board cannot accept the proposition that 3 nquiry into the adequacy of the staff review is inappro-i priate. Certainly the Board is not foreclosed from such an
~
7 G
~
i,
inquiry because the proceeding is contested; and if the Board is not foreclosed neither are the.'nterve:: ors. This does not mean that intervenors may examine into any such area to their hearts' content.
The Board intends to control the degree of inquiry in line with the policies set forth in its order of March 3,1971.
The Board's discussion of the general nature of the interroga-tories does not, of course, dispose of the proble=.
In view of the failure of the staff to specifically object to rest interroga-tories, the Board is left with the choice between overly broad interrogatories and insufficiently detailed objections. At this sta6e of the proceeding it would not make sense to require inter-venors to frame new, less burdensc=e, questions, or require the staff to file new objections. Given the expertise of the techni-cal =e=bers it see.s preferable for the Board to =ake its judg-
=ent on the basis of the docunents already received. Accordingly the Board has carefully reviewed the interrogatories and has ordered certain interrogatories to be answered. Our criteria for decision included our view of the lines of inquiry likely to prove fruitful; consistency with the principles outlined earlier in this order; the availability of infor=ation fim other sources; and the possibility of intervenors aking their own calculations and analyses.
m w
n
m, m
. - )
The interrogatories to be answered by the staff have been designated in earlier telegrams from the Boud.
The objections to the remaining interrogatories are sus-t tained.
In addition to the general ground that many are overly broad and burdensome as outlined above, they are objectionable for the reasons set forth below.
1.
Interrogatories 1-232. These interrogatories are duplicative of that served on applicant, the person with the primary obligation in this case.
2.
All interrogatories addressed to the ACR3 or to the staff involving its private communications to the ACRS. As indi-cated elsewhere, the value of the ACES is, in the Board's view, wholly dependent on preserving uninhibited communication with the staff.
It should also, of course, be noted that the ACRS is not a party to this proceeding and interrogatories addressed to it are improper.
3.
All requests for the staff to make additional calcula-tions and analyses are denied.
Intervenors can make their own analyses and calculations if they feel the need.
4.
A number of the interrogatories ask for detailed explana-tions and. justifications of standard technical evaluations and judgments. For example, No. 254 would require a description in detail of considerations which underlie the conclusion that the y,
m
'-m
)
)
_g_
design is " acceptable with regard to core physics, tharmal, hy-draulic and mechanical design. Where appropriate, the Safety Evaluation Report describes the factors which the staff considered.
If intervenors disagree with the conclusions reached, from the facts available they should demonstrate affirmatively why the conclusion was wrong. This observation is applicable to the following: 252, 253, 256-259, 261-264, 266, 269-275, 277, 278, 293, 295, 297, 298, 305-309, 311-315, 317.
5 No. 290, 291, 296, 301 and 302 ask for infemation which will be material at the operating license stage, or later, but need not be considered now.
- 6. No. 244-246, 248, 249, 276 and 281 asic for calculations as to theoretical doses and other matters which can be made by intervenors.
7.
No. 233 is objectionable for the reasons given with respect to simila interrogatories addressed to other parties.
8.
No. 239, 243 and 324 ask for infomation about matters not at issue in this proceeding.
9.
No. 251, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285 and 286 seek infomation which the app 1'icant is responsible for supplying.
- 10. No. 321, 323, 331 and 332 inquire about general AEC programs and are not specifically related to this pr.oceeding.
- 11. No. 310, 327-330 ask for infomation contained in the 7
Safety Evaluation Report.
i w
w
-y M>-
--mvg w
-W v
7
-r
---y-
7-
- 12. No. 294 and 326 call for speculative answers on un-knowable or hypothatical situations.
- 13. No. 287, 288 and 322 seek information pertinent to the basis for 10 CFR Part 20.
14.
No. 260 and 300 would i= pose a substantial burden on the staff without any showing of need for further definition of the ter=s used by the staff.
- 15. No. 299 and 336 call for infor=ation available else-where and of doubtful cateriality to this proceeding; 299(b) is objectionable, a=ong other reasons, as overly-broad.
16.
No. 335 has been answered.
- 17. No. 236, 238 and 337 are essentially a search for docu-
=ents; the availability of docu=ents and various assertions of privilege are the subject of separate =otions. To the extent that No. 238 seeks the nc=es of subordinates who perfor=ed evaluations, it is burdenso=e and unnecessary. Any questions can be asked of the panel of witnesses produced by the staff.
.i For the Ato ic Safety and Licensing Board ff[
'D:
June 1, 1971 Arthur W. W rphy, Chair =an r
_/ ld _ _ _ _ _ _
r}
fMi
,7
{*
t l'-
UNIMD STATES OF AMERICA A'IOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of ij Q-z/
CONSINERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-329, 330 (Midland Plant, thits 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of (1) Order with Respect to Environmental Defense Fund Offer of Proof dated June 1, 1971, and (2) Rulings on Interrogatories Addressed to the AEC Staff dated June 1, 1971, in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the Ibited States mail, first class or air mail, this 3rd day of June 1971:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Atenaic Safety and Licensing Board Smith & Brooker, P. C.
Columbia thiversity School of Law 703 Washington Avenue Box 38 Bay City, Michigan 48706 435 West 116th Street New York, New York 10027 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Vice President and General Dr. Clark Goodman Counsel 4
Professor of Physics John K. Restrick, Esq.
Ibiversity of Houston Consumers Power Company 3801 Cullen Boulevard 212 West Michigan Avenue Houston, Texas 77004 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. David B. Hall Mr. R. C. Youngdahl Ios Alamos Scientifie IAboratory Senior Vice President P. O. Box 1663 Consumers Power Company Ios Alamos, New Mexico 87544 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Dr. Stuart G. Forbes 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Redlands, California 92373 Midland County Board of Supervisors Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
623 St. Charles Street David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Atmic Energy Comunission Honorable Jerome Maslowski Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant Attorney General t
State of Michigan 6 0 Seven Story Office Building Robert Iowenstein, Esq.
3 Jerome E. Sharfinan, Esq.
525 West Ottava Lowenstein and Newman Lansing, Michigan 48913 1
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
<5.
j
l..
'3 50-329, 330 page 2 Honorable Curtis B. Beck Assistant Attorney General Milton R. Vessel, Esq.
3 State of Michigan Allen Ke:sbom, Esq.
6 0 Seven Story Office Building Eaye, Scholer, Fie:.An, Hays 3
525 ~4 cst Ottava and Handler Lansing, Michigan h8313 h25 Park Avenue
- ev York, ?iev York 10022 Honorable Patrick E. Kovaleski Assistant Attorney General, State Winiam A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
of Michigan James N. O'Connor, Esq.
6 0 Seven Story office Building The Dov Chemical Company 3
2030 Dow Center 525 West ottava TAnsing, Michigan h8913 Midland, Michigan h86h0 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Gladys Eessler, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery Eerlin, hoisman & i:essler 111 West Monroe Street 1910 N Street, N. 1 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. :M36 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Edvard Eerlin, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kessler herlin, Hoisman & Eessler 1910 N Street, N. W.
1910 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 10036 I
James A. Kendall, Esq.
William J. Ginster, Esq.
Currie and Kendall Guite h, Merrill li:ilding j
135 North Saginav Road Caginaw, Michigan
@2 Midland, Michigan h8640 C
}
Mr. Vendell H. Mar. hall Dr. Vayne E. North, Chairman IED No.10, Maplet n Midland Nuclear Power Ccarnittee Midland, Michigan b86hO P. O. Eox 335 Midland, Michigan h86hO thr i
t e? ~
Office of the Secretary of the
' f asion ec: Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt Mr. Wells N. Brown H. Smith
.