ML19338C168

Forwards 770701 News Article Re CPC 770630 News Conference. Requests Prompt Facility Const Suspension

ML19338C168
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/26/1977
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:	Coufal F, Leeds J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8008050620
Download: ML19338C168 (4)

Text

a

. n

, y s

law orreccs

• [

MYRON M. CHERRY h -

~

p ('.gojl 3.S is CHICAGO. lLLINoIS 6o611 op.",/ g

a. ., 7."; . . . ,, d #

co July 26, 1977 Dr. Emmeth J. Luebke Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 10807 Atwell U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77096 i Washington, D. C. 20555 Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel

~

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.,_ -j Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Midland Suspension Gentlemen:

We enclose our final document in connection with the Midland I hearings.

We should like to call specific attention to a July 1, 1977 report in the Midland Daily News (enclosed) which reported on a press conference held by consumers June 30, 1977.

As the report of the press conference shows, Consumers is

" racing" to complete as much construction as possible and has "an j all time high" work force of 2700 employees. Consumers has spent almost $500 million on the project and has expenses totaling

"$15 million per month" and has spent more than '.'$1 million" in legal fees to try to prevent construction halt. 1 i i We have demonstrated in our. pleadings that the factual  !

record mandates a halt in construction. We have also demonstrated  !

in our filings that Consumers, the Regulatory Staff (and a reluc- '

tant Dow Chemical) .have done nothing to further the honest review of this case and have affirmatively taken steps to cover up and secrete testimony.

Now Consumers, it appears, is taking total and complete advantage of the system by trying to co-opt the entire process by getting the plant built as quickly as possible.

With million dollar budgets for lawyers and an unlimited, open-ended ability by Consumers to spend as much as they want as fast as they can, the Intervenors who are merely seeking a fair hearing cannot hope.to compete.

8 0 0 8 0 5,g O

. ;s

'Drs. Luebke and Leeds-and Mr. Coufal Page.Two L -July 26, 1977 4

-But the events, which are beginning to overtake the

?ntire regulatory and hearing process, are beginning to make a; joke out of justice. We know',the Board has labored hard

and-has tried;in'every way to be fair to all of the parties, i even though the Board has been hampered by NRC rules which

prevent funding of Intervenors, by an incompetent and negligent

. Regulatory Staff-which refuses to make other than " political" t

decisions about nuclear power _ plants, and by Consumers itself which consciously devised ~a process to manipulate evidence, threaten _ witnesses,,and obfuscate every fact which would be

-adverse to its position.- The so-called " neutral" position taken by Dow Chemical . (which- has the resources to actively participate, but which has_not done so,despite Board orders to-the contrary) has made regulation and the hearing process more difficult.

4 Any review of'this case (however casual) and the implica-

tions thereof demand that a prompt decision on suspension be i had. But.the recent events described herein which reveal Con-sumers' latest. tactic (to spend as much as-it can as fast as it can) demonstrates Consumers' total and-complete arrogance

~

F for the system (compare Midland Intervenors' Exhibit 26 which r memorializes Consumers' conter.pt for the process and its " judgment" that it can finesse all the problems so,long as Intervenors and their counsel did not' appear) and contempt for the-Board's powers.

The_redi loser in this case if. suspension is not ordered will be,'of course,'the integrity of this Board. For if this j

' utility 1can. proceed with impunity on this record, the Atomic Energy _Act and,the public process (let alone the Board's authority) become paper tigers locked in a safe whose combination is permanently concealed.by Consumers'and its partners in ]

negligence and cover.up,.the Regulatory Staff. ' '

We pledge .to the Board our every cooperation and enthusiasm i

for a: full and complete and fairiand prompt remanded hearing;

. we: implore the Board to provide us.with that simple due process i tool'to enable us to continue in a way that does not make.a  ;

mockery of the remanded hearings---an-immediate. halt in construction.

x As counselifor;all1Intervenors.other than Dow Chemical, I .

also want to-state'that we have received the most recent supple-

] ment ~ to ? the Environmental Impact ~ Statement which was . filed with j l :the Boardlat the conclusion of the hearing process.

. .-e, -- m , .~y y - -- y -

H

. i

., . s l

Drs. Lu.ibke and Leeds and Mr. Coufal l Page Thlee.

July 26, 1977 j

That document'contains numerous matters which we intend to challenge at the remanded hearings and we believe we can demonstrate (if we have not already done so) that the document is totally insupportable.

Finally, under date of July 14, 1977 (although received on l i . July 25, 1977), the NRC has sent us Supplement No. 2 to the i Midland Safety Evaluation. The Board should very carefully look at this document since it is clear that the Staff has manipulated, on several major positions, the real facts. This document which raises numerous issues is no more than-a statement that the Staff ,

believes.that outstanding ACRS items can be resolved. However, l that Staff conclusion must be looked at in the light of the Crocker testimony where the Staff admits that it does not know the criteria foR or cost of resolution of outstanding safety problems, as well as the obvious fact (essentially ignored by the Staf f's Supplement) ,

that the ACRS has as yet not responded to the. Board's request for clarification ~and is in fact flouting this Board's directive,  !

making it impossible for the hearing process or anyone to deal with the safety issues which Intervenors are entitled to raise upon a clarified ACRS letter.

l These additional matters only heighten and underscore the necessity for a. prompt halt in construction so that an economic juggernaut does not, by force', substitute for the entire hearing process.

~~.Res ctfully, p

[

M. Cherry / i I

Co el:for All Interveno s except_Dow Chemical Comp ny MMC:es enclosures cc: Service List t

4

$