ML19331A934

Discusses 760721 Judgement of DC Court of Appeals.Supports Shutting Down Const of Facility

ML19331A934
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/04/1976
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, MAPLETON INTERVENORS, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Rusche B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19331A930	List: ML19331A929 ML19331A934
References
NUDOCS 8007240525
Download: ML19331A934 (2)

Text

.

g -

f-r .

law orrects

/

f MY RON M. CH ER RY

.g CHICAGO.lLLINots 6osal ,

/c) A \1 unassen.urr August 4, 1976'

[s 7

(/ dc? o q

~

ch pqh

. av ) N

\.4 j , to Mr. Bernard C. Rusche -

Office of the Director of Nuclear Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Co::=tission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: 73-1776 and 73-1867_

Dear Mr. Rusche:

Immediately upon receipt of the July 21, 1976 I judgment of the D.C. Court of Appeals in the Midland case, telephoned Peter Strauss and asked him to initiate procedures which would result in the immediate halting of construction at Midland since such an action would be consistent with the decision by the Court of Appeals.

In a telephone call this morning from Mr. Strauss.

I was informed of your response to Anthony Roiscan regarding his request on behalf of his clients to terminate, pendingI further hearings, the Vermont Yankee operating license.

understand that you informed Mr. Roisman that the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission wasrather, not. obligated it was the to set NRC's asideview, the Vermont Yankee license but that the Court of Appeals had ~iven the NRC discretion in connection with the setting asIdc of the Vermonc Yankee

.' license.

I gather that the purpose of Mr. Strauss's telephone call was to inform me char. likely if I wrote youaasimilar letter similar to Mr. Roismart' , I would verythis receive letter as a request to shut response.

Accordiny ., you may treat down Midiand (our Dockets 50-329 and 330) pursuant 21, 1976, to thealthough I

. judgment of the Court of Appeals on Julyappreciate that I w ydu.

l EXHIBIT A E

Y 8007240fgg

Mr. Bernard C. Rusche August 4, 1976 I might say that I find (quite apart from technical questions regarding the NRC's receipt of the mandate or NRC's consideration of further appeal procedure) a decision not to shut down Midland as soccwhat astounding. As I read the Court of Appeals in Midland, it requires at a minimum, (1) a revised ACM letter which in turn would give my clients an opportunity to raise further safety contentions; (2) further consideration of energy conservation including environ =catal analysis of the end-use of the electricity to be generated, which matters were not considered below; (3) detailed consid-oration of changed circu= stances because of Dow Chemical's earlier decision not to terminate and shut down its fossil fuel plants, a factor not -fully explcred below; (4) detailed consideration of fuel cycle matters erroneously excluded below; and (5) a revised or amended Environmental impact Statement and cost-benefit analysis.

As you can see, unlest the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to treat the remanded hearings as other than a serious inquiry into whether the Midland plant ought to be built, any one of the concepts listed above could opt very strongly against the' building of the plant in Midland. There-fore, it seems clear to me that it is impossible to have pro-ccedings in conformity with the Midland decision without having the Midland plant shut down. And, I can tell you that my clients would not feel very comfortable (or fairly treated) if recanded

' hearings were to take place while Consumers Power cheerfully con-tinues to build the plant now under attack.

While I fully aooreciate the argu=cnt that Consu=ers Power "is ,at risk," I think such an argument, when we are talking

- about handreds of millions of dollars, is fatuous and certainly, ,

from my clients' vantage point, unbelievable. Indeed, the case i of Calvert Cliffs and its pro 6eny underscores the necessity not i e to make nuge investments in acvance of decision-making, and under l j that concept, construction also ought to be halted.

apart from technical questions involving l the mandate, Accordingly,idland I think M should be shut down and at the very I minimum, the Commission ought promptly to inform Consumers to go slow in connection with construction pending final receipt of the i mandate from the Court of Appeals, if the NRC wishes to wait a few days. Considering the enormous problems in construction which have plagued Midland (not too surprisingly, given the fact g that Bechtel is involved) I would think the Commission would welcome an opportunity to halt construction of Midland. I g

' inehely, l

> l MMC /vmh

. /

cc: Peter L. Strauss, Esq.- Myrgy M. Cherry 1

. Honorable Vern Miller Atf6yneyforPetitioners  ;

Harold F. Reis Esq. /

l

~

s