ML19344A286
| ML19344A286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1977 |
| From: | Cherry M, Flynn P CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A280 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008070665 | |
| Download: ML19344A286 (5) | |
Text
l (v3
~
b9. Cr:: 7 7...,
c 9
/
n=h UNITED STATES OF AIERICA
[0/ [gh[j i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~3
,, s,. 'G' ' {
l to Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f[
N w
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS - POWER COMPANY -
)
Doeket Nos. 50-329 r
)
50-330 l
(Midland ~ Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
-FORM OF ORDER PROPOSED BY l
INTERVENORS OTHER THAN DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY J
I On the basis of the Board's Findings and Conclusions, and its opportunity ' to observe the witnesses and judge their l
credibility, the Board concludes that Consumers Power Company has not borne 'its burden 'of proving that' construction of the Midland nuclear facility should be permitted to continue and furthar-construction expenditures should be authorized pending i
completion of the full remanded hearings on the merits pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals.
The Board further con-l cludes that neither the Commiss' ion' Staff nor Dow Chemical l
-Company has demonstrated that construction should be continued.
t Although both have submitted proposed Findi'ngs, neither has
- critically and independently assessed the underlying issues--
[
in Dow's case, apparently because of its concern over Consumers '
j.
threats of litigation (see paragraphs.40, 42-51 of our rindings l
and Conclusions), 'and in' the Staff's case, because of an almost complete failure to undertake the task of independent data gathering.and analysis contemplated by'its role in contested
~
18008090. h f
~
A.,
1 Commission proceedings -(see paragraphs 36-37 of our Findings
. and Conclusions). ' Virtually without exception, the Staff has simply _ accepted Consumers' conclusions, on the basis of infor-4' mation obtained from Consumers'itself_and without any attempt to' verify the' facts underlying. Consumers' assertions.
(But for the Saginaw-and Mapleton Intervenors, those assertions and factual allegations would have gone essentially unquestioned; this. Board has neither the time nor the resources to conduct, on.its own, the kind of detailed and searching inquiry mandated
' here both 'by NEPA and-by the important and unresolved safety concerns disclosed by the record.)
Accordingly, and pursuant -
to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's.. reguladions,.IT IS ORDERED that Consumers Power Company, its agents and employees shall promptly cease and desist from al1~further construction activities with respect to the Midland plant, Units 1 and 2, pending completion of the - remanded. hearings and until-further order of ~ this Board.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
155: 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, _ and 2.786, that this Order shall become effective _immediately and~shall_ constitute, with f
- respect to the matters. covered'hereiniand in our Findings and-Conclusions, the 'fina11 action of - the Commission 30 days af ter -
.the-date;of the issuance _ hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the Commission's: Rules of Practice.
Exceptions to this initial decision may be filed by any party within seven -days.
h, li
lo.
- after service hereof,'and a brief in support of such excep-tions may be filed by any party within.15 da'ys: (20; days in l
. the case of the Staff)' thereafter.. Within 15 days of the
- filing and service'of the'brief of the appellant (20 days
' in the case:of the Staff), any other party may file a brief
- in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request of Consumers Power: Company for a '. stay. of the effectiveness of this Order.
L L
pending' review ~, pursuant to 10. C.F.R. S 2.764(a), is denied.
(.
- In part, our' denial of-the-stay request rests upon_the fact that 'to grant it would be to authorize, for an indefinite l
period.the length of which we cannot-determine,' the very continuing construction which we have cone'luded'should'not t.
- be allowed-because'of Consumers Power Company's failure to
\\'
~show 'that's'uch relief ~i57hicessary.. Thesame factual, legal,
. and' equitable'. considerations-pertinent to'our ruling (and f;
set forth in ourl Findings and Conclusions) apply with equal
. force to.the' stay request.
Un' der the circumstances, the language of-the. Appeal Board in-denying' Consumers' earlier _
stay request'is precisely applicable.
Co'nsumers Power Comoany (Midland Plant, Units ' 1 & ; 2), ALAB-395, 5 NRC (April 28, 1977),- Slip, Op. at.13-14,: quoted ;at paragraph 22 of our Findings'
~
and Conclusions.
We note that neither the Court of Appeals l
F
- nor thelppeal Board has 'seen fit to grant any of Consumers '
other stay requests. "In addition,-we'cannot conclude that
+
f
.c 3
(
g g
(g g
y yi e
g
,w yr-3
'""e f
b-
~
^
~
^f.
4 s
equitablelfactors warrant a grant of the requested stay.
' Denial of-the stay will not cause irreparable injury to.-
Consumers, any--more-than denial.of its request to continue construetion-pending.the remanded hearings; there is sub-stantial doubt, moreover, whether that test is. even applicable
~
here in. view of' the posture of this ' case: following - the rulings of-the Court of Appeals.
Mere financial injury to Consumers, even the incurring of what the Appeal Board described in ALAB-395 as " substantial and unrecoupable' costs," does not warrant a ' finding of irreparable injury, Renegotiation Board
- v. Bannercraft, 415 U.S. 1, 24~. (1974), any more than it warrants a failure to follow the clear mandate of NEPA and ensure the integrity of the ultimate cost-benefit analysis.
. Se'e Calvert Cliffs i Coord.-Comm., Inc. v. AEC,'449 F.2d 1109,
-1115 (D.C.'Cir. 1971), holding that neither " administrative 4
difficulty" nor " delay" nor " economic cos t" can jus tify a failureLeo' comply fully with NEPA requirements.
Finally, it follows from~ our ruling _on the suspension issue that we cannot-conclude that. Consumers has made the neces'ary showing, see 2
s
$~
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire ;(Seabroolt Station, Units
. 1 and :2), ALAB-349, NRCI-76/9. 235, 260-62-'(1976), - that con-
' tinued construction. will not. impair the integrity of the ultimate cost-benefit analysis or (M., at 258-59) render
'more difficult.the~ unbiased: evaluation of complete or partial
- alternatives. -See also Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire f
k es y
,.y-i
(__
c y
~
3
~
- (Seabrook Station, Units.1. and 2), ALAB-366, 5 t1RC (January
.21,,1977), Slip ~0p. at 65l-68:*
... continuing the commit-l
' ment of resources poses a threat to 'the integrity of the final
. governmental decision' because it may lead to 'public agencies and.. courts-: accepting-less desirable and limited options or,
~
worse, countenancing a fait accompli * * *'."
Precisely the same threat-is posed here,- as both Consumers (Tr. 1066-68, 1138)
'and the Staff (Crocker Testimony, fol. Tr. 4177, p. 3) have conceded.
It is so ORDERED.
Respectfully submitted, i
tO l0 Mytoh/. Cherry
[
0f 1
j.
Peter A. Flypn l
l Attorneys' for Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company i
t One: IBM Plaza Suite 4501
. Chicago, Illinois 60611-L (312) 565-1177
- ~ Modified on other--grounds and, as modified, affirmed in
- CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503 (March 31, :1977).
1
.