ML19331B163
| ML19331B163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1976 |
| From: | Brenner L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Nute L EMVDCCD |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250853 | |
| Download: ML19331B163 (2) | |
Text
e
/
4 UNITED STA1.3
[
NS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisSIOi,
%[g[/i
- I S
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 17, 1976
[,
s-
,A Ej f
QE
~
L. F. Nute, Esq.
q Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Michigan Division e"..
- x,.>
Midland, Michigan 48640 9
J w l ia In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (MidlandPlant,-Units..Iand.2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 & 50-330
Dear Mr. Nute:
In order to facilitate the NRC Staff's review of issues which may bear upon either the current interim suspension proceeding or the licensing proceeding on the merits of the issues remanded in Aeschliman v. NRC (D.C. Cir., July 21,1976), we require the re-sponses of Dow Chemical Company to the questions in Enclosure I to this letter.
Each question should be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation by the person making the answers.
It is important that the responses be in our hands no later than December 30, 1976.
Sincerely,
+
% ca Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Daniel M. Head, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Esq.
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
iMHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
P00R QUALITY PAGES Honorable Curt T. Schneider Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
David J. Rosso, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section 8007250 [$ ]
c.pf o ~y g
QucSTIONS FOR DOW CHEMICAL COMPAh.
1.
Does Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") at this time consider that its contract for steam service with Conswners Power Co., attached as Exhibit 7c to Mr. Stephen H. Howell's proposed testimony in this proceeding (hereafter referred to as " Steam Contract"), is a valid and binding contract? Describe the basis for your response in detail.
2.
Are the present provisions (in Exhibits 7a-7c' to Mr. Howe'll's proposed testfrony) being renegotiated or is such renegotiation contemplated within the next six months?
3.
If renegotiation is underway or anticipated, please describe the areas of renegotiation with particular emphasis on process steam delivery dates, quantities and options available to Dow to cancel the contract or secure an alternative steam supply.
4.
If it is not Dow's present position that the " Steam Contract" is a valid and binding contract, what is Dow's present position regarding the pur-chase of steam from the Midland Nuclear Plant.
What is the basis for this position?
5.
What is the latest date by which Dow has to definitely decide that it does not plan to rely on the Midland Nuclear Plant as a source for steam com-mencing in March 19827 6.
Is it possible that Dow's present position could change in the next 12 months? If so, describe the events which could cause such a change and the weight Dow would give to each in evaluating its position.
In response to th?s question, give particular attention to the following:
a.
action or inaction by the MAPCC.
b.
action or inaction by ASLB.
+
c.
present or anticipated renegotiation with Consumers Power Co.
d.
present or anticipated litigation with Consumers Power Co. over supply of process steam for Dow's Midland facilities.
i i
l e
4 w--
--.-,,,--e4s-e---
e
,,.,